Nope. Apart from taking a different point of view, you seem to write exactly the same as me. I wrote from the point of view of the labels, since it is their decision we are discussing, that is most relevant.
BTW it's the ultimate irony that Toshiba make the processor for the machine that was / is killing HD DVD. But I expect the Japanese electronics industry is full of incestuous, contradictory partnerships like this. I suspect it is the norm everywhere that large companies are collaborating in some areas, while competing in others. Not something particular to Japan.
> Just saying that a majority doesn't necessarily define what is right and wrong.
For all practical purposes, might makes right.
The existence of rights independent on people who believe in them is a very interesting concept for philosophy classes, but devoid of real world applications.
Herb Sutter wrote in his blog (which was linked in the submission) that the only thing from TR1 for C++ not implemented was C99 support. So I guess not.
It seems to me the only way this technology ever winds up on the road is if the owner of the car signs a waver at the car dealership to hold GM harmless and assume all responsibility for driverless mode accidents. I doubt such a waiver would be enough to protect GM from liability.
My guess is the following will happen: First, the car must be cleared with the government for driverless use under some conditions. If an accident happens anyway, liability will depend on 1) did the driver use it appropriately? If not, he is responsible, otherwise 2) is their any fault in the manufacturing? If so, the manufacturer is responsible, otherwise 3) it might be an accident with no one real responsible part. The law may still put one party (the driver) as having "objective responsibility".
The specific example was an Australian ad agency using a photo from flickr under a CC license, without getting proper model release. The CC FAQ explains that a model release is also needed. Even without the explanation, the Australian ad agency certainly ought to know about any rules about model release that may apply in Australia.
Unfortunately, someone very early in the discussion on Flick (after kid discovered her photo was used in Australia) mentioned that another model had got US$ 100.000 in compensation. Such numbers can destroy the ability to think, so the parents decided to sue Creative Commons for having written the license. You can read CC's take on it.
Not as much as an indication of willingness to commit crime as general untrustworthiness.
If you are willing to pretend you are something you are not to the search engines (which is basically what black hat SEO consists of) in order to lure customers to your site, there is a good chance you are willing to do something similar to the customers in order to ensure a sale.
Mod parent up, it really sums up everything worthwhile about the subject.
"Curse these personal computers!" cried the novice in anger, "To make them do anything I must use three or even four editing programs. This is truly intolerable!"
The master programmer stared at the novice. "And what would you do to remedy this state of affairs?" he asked.
The novice thought for a moment. "I will design a new editing program," he said, "a program that will replace all these others."
Suddenly the master struck the novice on the side of his head.
"What did you do that for?" exclaimed the surprised novice.
"I have no wish to learn another editing program," said the master.
And suddenly the novice was enlightened.
-- from "The Zen of Programming" by Geoffrey James, 1988.
Use LaTeX instead of plain TeX, it allows you to concentrate on content without the distraction of presentation.
The time needed to to be spend on presentation of a 250 page LaTeX document (and yes, I have written a handful such documents) is around 10 seconds, if you are willing to live with the (somewhat boring) default layout, plus some sloppy spacing.
[ It is actually one of great advantages of markup based typesetting systems, over wysiwyg based systems. AT&T did measurements when trying to switch from troff to PageMaker. Internal regulation demanded a pilot project to show benefit. Management wanted to switch, but the troff based beat out the PageMaker based team each time, despite both teams having no prior knowledge of the tools. The PageMaker based team spend too much time too early on layout. ]
> What is it with this "it's been done before, thus it can't be improved"-philosophy?
Writeroom is not actually trying to sell itself on being an improvement on anything, it sells itslef on notalgia to a time where there were zillions of text editors. Problem is, these text editors are still around. If vim is too strange, try Emacs as the poster suggested. Both have all the features listed, and are rather easy to learn if you only do simple stuff. And if you want it even simpler, pico, or nano, or jed, or joe are also available.
Retro ... when the originals are still around
on
Goodbye Cruel Word
·
· Score: 1
Agree. Kind of strange selling stuff to mimic the tools from the good old days, when the tools from the good old days are still around.
At the short term, it seems to make coal based energy production more efficient. That is significant, no matter what your long time goals are, coal is going to be a very important source of energy for the next many years.
At the long term, they hope to develop the technology further so it can extract the CO2 needed directly from the atmosphere, and then it will be a renewable if successful.
A problem with the energy and climate discussion is the idea that we should have one solution to all our needs. Short of a dramatic breakthrough in fusion, I don't see that happen.
We are going to see an increase in renewable energy. Different kinds in different places, there are good reasons why "wind" is more relevant than "solar" in my country (Denmark), and why "water" is dominating in Sweden. Fission to ought get a renaissance. Use of fossil sources should decrease. if nothing else then for economic and geopolitical reasons. Biofuel will hopefully not be significant, until we get global population growth under control. There is a huge potential in efficiency, just proper isolation would make US consumption much closer to other industrialized countries.
And we are going to have to adapt to a changing climate, that is a given.
> To question Darwinism is to risk losing your job if you are a scientist.
No it doesn't, all biologist reject Darwinism as originally proposed in favor for more modern theories of evolution.
There is a huge difference between questioning the established theories, and promoting something like ID. The later would be like a geologist promoting Flat Earth.
> Ninety percent of NAS scientists are atheists.
Smart people almost always are.
> Teaching evolution teaches their philosophy.
Philosophy tend to fill very little in the minds of a scientist, for (most of) them, Science come first. Philosophy, like Politics, is mostly seen as an distraction. They may have opinions on the matter, but they are not important to them.
> Teaching ID would promote critical thinking, not blindly following the scientific > overloads.
ID is the opposite of critical thinking, and your point of "scientific overlords" underscores my point of how uneducated people tend to see scientists as priest, because you don't understand how science works.
> How can evolution be science when it can not be falsifiable since it is the only acceptable theory?
Theories called "Evolution" has been falsified many times, and been replaced by better theories that have also been called "Evolution". There is a huge difference bet
> Evolution can't explain the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, the creation of > mankind, or the increase in the complexity of life.
There are zillions of things, including gravity and modern art, evolution can't explain. If you want explanations for everything, you are better of with Religion than with Science.
> Teaching science that has been proven by falsifiable testing would prohibit the teaching > of evolution.
Technically, falsifiable testing can only disprove theories, not prove them, so by not having a clue you have been able to come up with a technically true (the best kind of true!) statement. Maybe there is a god!
I always answer those using the extremes for those cases where I'm not indifferent, in order to maximize the influence of my vote.
The range voting advocacy center acknowledge this as the optimal strategy in the generic case, but are able to find some corner cases where an honest voting strategy is better.
It is worth noting that Kuro5hin experienced the same effect, and switched from range voting to approval voting on comments.
For general elections, I'd recommend either approval voting (because the mechanics is so much simpler) or preferential voting because several of the vote counting techniques for preferential voting makes strategic voting very difficult.
She wrote another "answer" rant called "Dead Men Walking", which selectively listed male heroes who had died and came back.
Her rants could probably be used in a textbook as an extreme example of biased sampling. They are extremely annoying to anyone with a science background, or people otherwise inclined to rational thought.
However, given her background as a hairdresser, one can maybe excuse the poor reasoning, and praise the clear prose. Too much logic is probably a handicap when writing superhero comics, if there is anything the superhero genre does not lend itself to, it is logic.
Religious fanaticism is on the rise, in particular in North America and in the Islamic world, but also in the rest of the world. Theist of all faith are getting increasingly literal minded, unwilling to see or tolerate any truth but their own.
Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the same happens to "my" faction. I see many testaments like yours, from people who used to be able to see merits in other point of views than their own, but recently have come to the realization that theists are just stupid and evil, and deserve no respect at all.
Apparently the global trend is that Absolutism, in its most stupid form, is taking over from Relativism, in its most stupid form.
The few freethinkers of the world will have to get used to arguing with close minded bigots, rather than with fluffy minded relativists, for whom every point of view is equally valid.
It might come as a big surprise for you, but the Pope was Catholic, and it has always been the position of the Catholic Church, like it has been for all educated Christians, that the Bible requires interpretation.
This is quite unlike the certain inbreed American hillbillies, who has never read a book in their life, who therefore believe the King James Bible is God's words which can somehow be read directly without interpretation.
I missed the license part. Not sure how the GGP proposal would help then, presumably the patent trolls will try to get people to license their patents as well (that is how they get money from them).
Traditional patents does most damage when the patent holder release some poor and overpriced product only few can and will afford, basically holding back the benefits of the invention for the duration of the patent.
I believe induction cooking was delayed that way, because the holder of a key patent only used it in its own very exclusive brand, and refused to license it to cheaper brands with better distribution channels.
It is much better if the patent holder has no products of its own, and instead offers patents to everyone on RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms.
Even better, of course, would be to do away with the patents.
> Indeed, Darwin was a practicing Anglican most of his life, and the fact he could not > reconcile his scientific observations with the theological thought of his day was a > short-term bug.
According to Wikipedia, Darwin lost his faith when his daughter died, which is very much a "why" rather than a "how" question (the problem of pain).
> True, but it has absolutely no relevance to cult beliefs. The solution to limited > scientific knowledge is better science, not to give up and invent a god of the gaps.
The great scientific discoveries of the 20' century was the realization of the theoretical limits of science. Not just that there are areas that has not yet been mapped yet, but that there are areas that are unmappable. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Goedel's incompleteness theorem, the halting problem, chaos theory... it is all exploration of what can be mapped.
The existence of God is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. The solution to that is not to "invent a better science", but for people to understand where science is and is not applicable. Science is the best at what it does, but when you apply it outside its domain it is no longer science, but scientism. Something that is no better than when creationists and other religious nuts try to apply religion on the domain of science.
Slashdot Mirror
> Are you kidding me?
Nope. Apart from taking a different point of view, you seem to write exactly the same as me. I wrote from the point of view of the labels, since it is their decision we are discussing, that is most relevant.
Don't confuse connotations with semantics.
I use neither Gnome nor KDE, and still believe that a major release of either warrants a full article on the front page.
And I don't care that most of the changes are under the hood, this is supposed to be a nerd site after all.
> Just saying that a majority doesn't necessarily define what is right and wrong.
For all practical purposes, might makes right.
The existence of rights independent on people who believe in them is a very interesting concept for philosophy classes, but devoid of real world applications.
Apple had become too powerful and arrogant, so basically the labels had become more scared of Apple than of the consumers.
Herb Sutter wrote in his blog (which was linked in the submission) that the only thing from TR1 for C++ not implemented was C99 support. So I guess not.
My guess is the following will happen: First, the car must be cleared with the government for driverless use under some conditions. If an accident happens anyway, liability will depend on 1) did the driver use it appropriately? If not, he is responsible, otherwise 2) is their any fault in the manufacturing? If so, the manufacturer is responsible, otherwise 3) it might be an accident with no one real responsible part. The law may still put one party (the driver) as having "objective responsibility".
Not really different from the situation today.
The specific example was an Australian ad agency using a photo from flickr under a CC license, without getting proper model release. The CC FAQ explains that a model release is also needed. Even without the explanation, the Australian ad agency certainly ought to know about any rules about model release that may apply in Australia.
Unfortunately, someone very early in the discussion on Flick (after kid discovered her photo was used in Australia) mentioned that another model had got US$ 100.000 in compensation. Such numbers can destroy the ability to think, so the parents decided to sue Creative Commons for having written the license. You can read CC's take on it.
Not as much as an indication of willingness to commit crime as general untrustworthiness.
If you are willing to pretend you are something you are not to the search engines (which is basically what black hat SEO consists of) in order to lure customers to your site, there is a good chance you are willing to do something similar to the customers in order to ensure a sale.
Mod parent up, it really sums up everything worthwhile about the subject.
"Curse these personal computers!" cried the novice in anger, "To make them do anything I must use three or even four editing programs. This is truly intolerable!"
The master programmer stared at the novice. "And what would you do to remedy this state of affairs?" he asked.
The novice thought for a moment. "I will design a new editing program," he said, "a program that will replace all these others."
Suddenly the master struck the novice on the side of his head.
"What did you do that for?" exclaimed the surprised novice.
"I have no wish to learn another editing program," said the master.
And suddenly the novice was enlightened.
-- from "The Zen of Programming" by Geoffrey James, 1988.
Use LaTeX instead of plain TeX, it allows you to concentrate on content without the distraction of presentation.
The time needed to to be spend on presentation of a 250 page LaTeX document (and yes, I have written a handful such documents) is around 10 seconds, if you are willing to live with the (somewhat boring) default layout, plus some sloppy spacing.
[ It is actually one of great advantages of markup based typesetting systems, over wysiwyg based systems. AT&T did measurements when trying to switch from troff to PageMaker. Internal regulation demanded a pilot project to show benefit. Management wanted to switch, but the troff based beat out the PageMaker based team each time, despite both teams having no prior knowledge of the tools. The PageMaker based team spend too much time too early on layout. ]
> What is it with this "it's been done before, thus it can't be improved"-philosophy?
Writeroom is not actually trying to sell itself on being an improvement on anything, it sells itslef on notalgia to a time where there were zillions of text editors. Problem is, these text editors are still around. If vim is too strange, try Emacs as the poster suggested. Both have all the features listed, and are rather easy to learn if you only do simple stuff. And if you want it even simpler, pico, or nano, or jed, or joe are also available.
Agree. Kind of strange selling stuff to mimic the tools from the good old days, when the tools from the good old days are still around.
At the short term, it seems to make coal based energy production more efficient. That is significant, no matter what your long time goals are, coal is going to be a very important source of energy for the next many years.
At the long term, they hope to develop the technology further so it can extract the CO2 needed directly from the atmosphere, and then it will be a renewable if successful.
A problem with the energy and climate discussion is the idea that we should have one solution to all our needs. Short of a dramatic breakthrough in fusion, I don't see that happen.
We are going to see an increase in renewable energy. Different kinds in different places, there are good reasons why "wind" is more relevant than "solar" in my country (Denmark), and why "water" is dominating in Sweden. Fission to ought get a renaissance. Use of fossil sources should decrease. if nothing else then for economic and geopolitical reasons. Biofuel will hopefully not be significant, until we get global population growth under control. There is a huge potential in efficiency, just proper isolation would make US consumption much closer to other industrialized countries.
And we are going to have to adapt to a changing climate, that is a given.
Treating "Range Voting" as "Approval Voting" generates the results in the general case.
And comment moderation can easily be viewed as "which comment should be shown first", thus making it a rating of multiple candidates.
> To question Darwinism is to risk losing your job if you are a scientist.
No it doesn't, all biologist reject Darwinism as originally proposed in favor for more modern theories of evolution.
There is a huge difference between questioning the established theories, and promoting something like ID. The later would be like a geologist promoting Flat Earth.
> Ninety percent of NAS scientists are atheists.
Smart people almost always are.
> Teaching evolution teaches their philosophy.
Philosophy tend to fill very little in the minds of a scientist, for (most of) them, Science come first. Philosophy, like Politics, is mostly seen as an distraction. They may have opinions on the matter, but they are not important to them.
> Teaching ID would promote critical thinking, not blindly following the scientific
> overloads.
ID is the opposite of critical thinking, and your point of "scientific overlords" underscores my point of how uneducated people tend to see scientists as priest, because you don't understand how science works.
> How can evolution be science when it can not be falsifiable since it is the only acceptable theory?
Theories called "Evolution" has been falsified many times, and been replaced by better theories that have also been called "Evolution". There is a huge difference bet
> Evolution can't explain the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, the creation of
> mankind, or the increase in the complexity of life.
There are zillions of things, including gravity and modern art, evolution can't explain. If you want explanations for everything, you are better of with Religion than with Science.
> Teaching science that has been proven by falsifiable testing would prohibit the teaching
> of evolution.
Technically, falsifiable testing can only disprove theories, not prove them, so by not having a clue you have been able to come up with a technically true (the best kind of true!) statement. Maybe there is a god!
Range voting is quite common in questionnaires, where the form is often:
Q) You boss is an idiot.
[ ] Totally agree [ ] Partially agree [ ] Indifferent [ ] Partially disagree [ ] Totally diagree
I always answer those using the extremes for those cases where I'm not indifferent, in order to maximize the influence of my vote.
The range voting advocacy center acknowledge this as the optimal strategy in the generic case, but are able to find some corner cases where an honest voting strategy is better.
It is worth noting that Kuro5hin experienced the same effect, and switched from range voting to approval voting on comments.
For general elections, I'd recommend either approval voting (because the mechanics is so much simpler) or preferential voting because several of the vote counting techniques for preferential voting makes strategic voting very difficult.
She wrote another "answer" rant called "Dead Men Walking", which selectively listed male heroes who had died and came back.
Her rants could probably be used in a textbook as an extreme example of biased sampling. They are extremely annoying to anyone with a science background, or people otherwise inclined to rational thought.
However, given her background as a hairdresser, one can maybe excuse the poor reasoning, and praise the clear prose. Too much logic is probably a handicap when writing superhero comics, if there is anything the superhero genre does not lend itself to, it is logic.
Religious fanaticism is on the rise, in particular in North America and in the Islamic world, but also in the rest of the world. Theist of all faith are getting increasingly literal minded, unwilling to see or tolerate any truth but their own.
Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the same happens to "my" faction. I see many testaments like yours, from people who used to be able to see merits in other point of views than their own, but recently have come to the realization that theists are just stupid and evil, and deserve no respect at all.
Apparently the global trend is that Absolutism, in its most stupid form, is taking over from Relativism, in its most stupid form.
The few freethinkers of the world will have to get used to arguing with close minded bigots, rather than with fluffy minded relativists, for whom every point of view is equally valid.
> Well, you took some shots at the Christians and the Islamics.
Only *stupid* Christians and Muslims. No intelligent Christian or Muslim (and there are plenty) needs to feel offended.
> Care to have a go at the Jews now, Per "Abraham"sen?...
Jews are cool, and I sometimes want to change my last name to ben Abraham to be more cool.
Mostly Jews are cool for being non-missionary. Both Christians and Muslims are commanded by their prophets to bring their confusion to other people.
Something bad about Jews? The ritualistic mutilation of male children is of course totally unacceptable by any civilized person.
Happy?
> So the old pope didn't believe in the bible?
It might come as a big surprise for you, but the Pope was Catholic, and it has always been the position of the Catholic Church, like it has been for all educated Christians, that the Bible requires interpretation.
This is quite unlike the certain inbreed American hillbillies, who has never read a book in their life, who therefore believe the King James Bible is God's words which can somehow be read directly without interpretation.
I missed the license part. Not sure how the GGP proposal would help then, presumably the patent trolls will try to get people to license their patents as well (that is how they get money from them).
Traditional patents does most damage when the patent holder release some poor and overpriced product only few can and will afford, basically holding back the benefits of the invention for the duration of the patent.
I believe induction cooking was delayed that way, because the holder of a key patent only used it in its own very exclusive brand, and refused to license it to cheaper brands with better distribution channels.
It is much better if the patent holder has no products of its own, and instead offers patents to everyone on RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms.
Even better, of course, would be to do away with the patents.
> Indeed, Darwin was a practicing Anglican most of his life, and the fact he could not
> reconcile his scientific observations with the theological thought of his day was a
> short-term bug.
According to Wikipedia, Darwin lost his faith when his daughter died, which is very much a "why" rather than a "how" question (the problem of pain).
> True, but it has absolutely no relevance to cult beliefs. The solution to limited
> scientific knowledge is better science, not to give up and invent a god of the gaps.
The great scientific discoveries of the 20' century was the realization of the theoretical limits of science. Not just that there are areas that has not yet been mapped yet, but that there are areas that are unmappable. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Goedel's incompleteness theorem, the halting problem, chaos theory... it is all exploration of what can be mapped.
The existence of God is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. The solution to that is not to "invent a better science", but for people to understand where science is and is not applicable. Science is the best at what it does, but when you apply it outside its domain it is no longer science, but scientism. Something that is no better than when creationists and other religious nuts try to apply religion on the domain of science.