So, they introduce a faster Javascript engine. Good for them; they've got a working prototype/alpha of 1/4th of the necessary features to catch up with everyone else, at this point:
* multiprocess functionality * security mechanisms resulting from said multiprocess functionality * better thread/tab/etc. management
At this point, the only thing Firefox has going for it is adblock and the huge extension repository. Even then, its debatable: Chrome, for instance, seems to implement most of the extensions I used natively, and does it better than Firefox extensions did, to boot. (Most of which were only necessary to make up for FF shortcomings, like crashing.)
Honestly, the very first thing FF should be working on is multiprocess shit. It's big, bloated, and at this point, somewhat archaic in architecture - the code base is over 12 years old, isn't it?
Perhaps they should just ditch the Gecko/GTK combo and adopt Qt, Webkit and V8, what's the point in trying to compete when they could just assimilate:).
Yes, but if it was an "ethnic" joke I bet no-one would jump to his defence. I have often found it telling that a guy spouting racist jokes will get called up for it, yet a sexist/homophobic/nationalist/genderist joke is beyond reproach.
Actually you could make a fair case for confiscating and redistributing real-estate assets (minus any improvements), they are by their very nature "stolen goods" as no-one had the right to sell them.
Another cheap method for killing microbes is just to fill PET bottles (old coke bottles) with the water and leave them in the sun for a couple of days, of course the UV light breaks down not just the nasties but the bottle itself eventually.
While libertarians tend to get all outraged about things like this
The dumbest thing about that POV is that if roads were privately owned the speeding tickets would be as high as they could get away with. Not to mention that they could collude with car manufacturers and ban cars above a certain age, collude with energy companies and ban vehicles below a certain displacement/energy consumption. I know someone will mention the C word, but you can imagine how inefficient it would be to have competing road networks. I can envision a user owned transport cooperative, but I can also envision similar speed limits being set by the voting body of such an organisation, granted driving is inherently dangerous, but a democratically set "level of danger" is really inevitable.
New image search is a nice improvement. BUT the new links you get aren't as nice. Somehow they seem slower loading for me.
Why not actually load the page they are on and attach a little bit of code to stick the image over-top. if you click the x hide everything instantly. Why reload the whole god damn page?
I don't see how that could possibly work, how could Google "run a little bit of code" on someone else's website? Am I missing something? On the other hand just loading the page containing the image straight away, with no box, would be preferable to the current system.
I don't know if this is intended to be insightful or snarky, but I am totally on board with defining an embryo to be human when it can survive without its mother (even if it gets medical assistance). At this point, I will accept all arguments for not aborting, but not prior to this point.
For some around here that's probably around 20 years, I think you need a better definition.
I find windows 7 to be a bit more handsome than that, with the various OS X's better still. On the other hand with a bit of theming, a Compiz desktop could be better than either, and there is certainly a great deal more choice. Personally I find clean-looks/clear-looks to be the nicest widget theme for GNU. It seems that the various Linux/Floss communities have managed to attract great developers, but very few artists.
The fact that the boundary isn't clear cut doesn't imply that there are no areas that are clearly on one or the other side of the boundary.
Actually that is by definition what that means. I catch your drift though; It's a kind of fuzzy set, so your main point still stands. On the other hand, simply being a conscious living thing isn't enough to give that thing the right to live by any philosophical standard. You never see Mother Teresa types out there desperately try to save a gazelle from a lion, nor has anyone called for ACME to be punished for their abhorrent treatment of sea-monkeys. Yet we get our knickers in a twist over something that is provably not even conscious.
People always have terrible blind-spots for their "very important" beliefs, sometimes I think everyone should think of the thing they care most about, and never voice an opinion on that thing again. No more PETA, no more MADD, no more evangelism, no more Cato Institute, and I shall never mention war again.
If you support abortions that are medically necessary then you place a higher value on the mother than the fetus. Therefore, you should have no issue with abortion in all cases. Unless of course you are not being rational.
You're right, he does place higher value on the mother than the chicken; however, second to the mother, the chicken takes highest value. Therefore, if the mother (top priority) is not at risk, the chicken (next highest priority) should be protected and given the right to live. His argument is perfectly rational, you are wrong.
You have just set a very silly precedent, and you need to think very hard before you eat another steak, or masturbate for that matter, or even let your wife go outside without the appropriate headgear.
Perhaps you could think of it this way then; A user owned cooperative owns a monopoly on all natural resources in a given area. Instead of giving those resources away for the price of mining them, the cooperative charges a margin on those goods, and then pays that amount back as a dividend to its shareholders. It matters very little to me whether or not it's a government or private ownership of these resources, as long as someone charges more for them than the extraction costs.
and if resource use is inflexible as you claim, a resource tax is really just that.
I made no such claim. However, it is well known that taxes, however small, always distort the marketplace and produce some dead weight loss. The principle is well known from basic economics. Now, some minimal amount of revenue is required to fund the necessary functions of government and the government mostly derives its revenues from taxes so taxes are not entirely dispensable. However, it would be desirable for taxes to be limited to the amount minimally required to fund those necessary functions. You can argue about what level of functionality is necessary, but most people would agree that it should be substantially less than what the government currently wastes each year. It is also possible to discuss the relative efficiencies of various taxes in generating that revenue, but that is separate discussion from the issue of minimally necessary government revenue.
No you didn't claim it, but "there are many" on the right who do:). My proposition is simply that this dead-weight loss is a positive thing if it discourages consumption of limited natural resources, and if you agree that taxes are a necessity, why not discourage wasteful behaviour instead of discouraging business.
I'm not sure why 'the right' proposing something would make it better, but in general I oppose sales tax/VAT/GST on the grounds that it is regressive, and poorer people end up paying a higher percentage of their income as taxes than rich people.
Well I just assumed to much of your politics I suppose, and I agree that a flat tax would benefit the wealthy and harm the poor, compared to progressive tax, but I think a substantial basic income would more than make up for that.
Remember that taxing gasoline isn't just taxing gasoline, it increases the price of everything that gets moved with gasoline. The cumulative effects add up.
Agreed, but I don't see a problem in that, how is that worse than say GST? It seems remarkably close the fair tax proposals that are popular with certain parts of the right, but it has the added benefit of helping to encourage recycling and efficient technology. It's just a matter of moving the tax burden, if something can be changed to make it less energy intensive it will, the rest is just a flat tax.
Slashdot Mirror
So, they introduce a faster Javascript engine. Good for them; they've got a working prototype/alpha of 1/4th of the necessary features to catch up with everyone else, at this point:
* multiprocess functionality
* security mechanisms resulting from said multiprocess functionality
* better thread/tab/etc. management
At this point, the only thing Firefox has going for it is adblock and the huge extension repository. Even then, its debatable: Chrome, for instance, seems to implement most of the extensions I used natively, and does it better than Firefox extensions did, to boot. (Most of which were only necessary to make up for FF shortcomings, like crashing.)
Honestly, the very first thing FF should be working on is multiprocess shit. It's big, bloated, and at this point, somewhat archaic in architecture - the code base is over 12 years old, isn't it?
Perhaps they should just ditch the Gecko/GTK combo and adopt Qt, Webkit and V8, what's the point in trying to compete when they could just assimilate :).
How much did they pay you to say that AC?
Yes, but if it was an "ethnic" joke I bet no-one would jump to his defence. I have often found it telling that a guy spouting racist jokes will get called up for it, yet a sexist/homophobic/nationalist/genderist joke is beyond reproach.
How the fuck is this modded troll? The GP seems closer to a troll.
Of course Mozilla, as a member of the floss community is going to promote floss and open standards, as does Google, and even Apple to an extent.
Actually you could make a fair case for confiscating and redistributing real-estate assets (minus any improvements), they are by their very nature "stolen goods" as no-one had the right to sell them.
No but I'm a dab hand at descent :P.
Another cheap method for killing microbes is just to fill PET bottles (old coke bottles) with the water and leave them in the sun for a couple of days, of course the UV light breaks down not just the nasties but the bottle itself eventually.
I cant see where you've comefrom with that joke.
While libertarians tend to get all outraged about things like this
The dumbest thing about that POV is that if roads were privately owned the speeding tickets would be as high as they could get away with. Not to mention that they could collude with car manufacturers and ban cars above a certain age, collude with energy companies and ban vehicles below a certain displacement/energy consumption. I know someone will mention the C word, but you can imagine how inefficient it would be to have competing road networks.
I can envision a user owned transport cooperative, but I can also envision similar speed limits being set by the voting body of such an organisation, granted driving is inherently dangerous, but a democratically set "level of danger" is really inevitable.
Using your package manager, install an on-screen keyboard application ;)
New image search is a nice improvement. BUT the new links you get aren't as nice. Somehow they seem slower loading for me.
Why not actually load the page they are on and attach a little bit of code to stick the image over-top. if you click the x hide everything instantly. Why reload the whole god damn page?
I don't see how that could possibly work, how could Google "run a little bit of code" on someone else's website? Am I missing something?
On the other hand just loading the page containing the image straight away, with no box, would be preferable to the current system.
I don't know if this is intended to be insightful or snarky, but I am totally on board with defining an embryo to be human when it can survive without its mother (even if it gets medical assistance). At this point, I will accept all arguments for not aborting, but not prior to this point.
For some around here that's probably around 20 years, I think you need a better definition.
Compare W7 to something like this
I find windows 7 to be a bit more handsome than that, with the various OS X's better still. On the other hand with a bit of theming, a Compiz desktop could be better than either, and there is certainly a great deal more choice. Personally I find clean-looks/clear-looks to be the nicest widget theme for GNU. It seems that the various Linux/Floss communities have managed to attract great developers, but very few artists.
The fact that the boundary isn't clear cut doesn't imply that there are no areas that are clearly on one or the other side of the boundary.
Actually that is by definition what that means. I catch your drift though; It's a kind of fuzzy set, so your main point still stands. On the other hand, simply being a conscious living thing isn't enough to give that thing the right to live by any philosophical standard. You never see Mother Teresa types out there desperately try to save a gazelle from a lion, nor has anyone called for ACME to be punished for their abhorrent treatment of sea-monkeys. Yet we get our knickers in a twist over something that is provably not even conscious.
You're right.
People always have terrible blind-spots for their "very important" beliefs, sometimes I think everyone should think of the thing they care most about, and never voice an opinion on that thing again.
No more PETA, no more MADD, no more evangelism, no more Cato Institute, and I shall never mention war again.
Wait, I had my fingers crossed, gotcha. :)
Sorry It's actually Kill 'Em & Grill 'Em.
If you support abortions that are medically necessary then you place a higher value on the mother than the fetus. Therefore, you should have no issue with abortion in all cases. Unless of course you are not being rational.
You're right, he does place higher value on the mother than the chicken; however, second to the mother, the chicken takes highest value. Therefore, if the mother (top priority) is not at risk, the chicken (next highest priority) should be protected and given the right to live. His argument is perfectly rational, you are wrong.
Kill em an' grill em', I say.
You have just set a very silly precedent, and you need to think very hard before you eat another steak, or masturbate for that matter, or even let your wife go outside without the appropriate headgear.
:O what the heck r u talkin bout i cant understand it :@ comment on a simpler way to put it
An actual comment from that instructable, I think the GP's point still stands :).
Actually 'since' can also be used as a conjunction, the GP's usage was correct.
God help us when we encounter the Communist Terrorist Paedophile who was part of the Cold War!
Are you referring to Evilenko?
Perhaps you could think of it this way then; A user owned cooperative owns a monopoly on all natural resources in a given area. Instead of giving those resources away for the price of mining them, the cooperative charges a margin on those goods, and then pays that amount back as a dividend to its shareholders. It matters very little to me whether or not it's a government or private ownership of these resources, as long as someone charges more for them than the extraction costs.
and if resource use is inflexible as you claim, a resource tax is really just that.
I made no such claim. However, it is well known that taxes, however small, always distort the marketplace and produce some dead weight loss. The principle is well known from basic economics. Now, some minimal amount of revenue is required to fund the necessary functions of government and the government mostly derives its revenues from taxes so taxes are not entirely dispensable. However, it would be desirable for taxes to be limited to the amount minimally required to fund those necessary functions. You can argue about what level of functionality is necessary, but most people would agree that it should be substantially less than what the government currently wastes each year. It is also possible to discuss the relative efficiencies of various taxes in generating that revenue, but that is separate discussion from the issue of minimally necessary government revenue.
No you didn't claim it, but "there are many" on the right who do :). My proposition is simply that this dead-weight loss is a positive thing if it discourages consumption of limited natural resources, and if you agree that taxes are a necessity, why not discourage wasteful behaviour instead of discouraging business.
I'm not sure why 'the right' proposing something would make it better, but in general I oppose sales tax/VAT/GST on the grounds that it is regressive, and poorer people end up paying a higher percentage of their income as taxes than rich people.
Well I just assumed to much of your politics I suppose, and I agree that a flat tax would benefit the wealthy and harm the poor, compared to progressive tax, but I think a substantial basic income would more than make up for that.
Remember that taxing gasoline isn't just taxing gasoline, it increases the price of everything that gets moved with gasoline. The cumulative effects add up.
Agreed, but I don't see a problem in that, how is that worse than say GST? It seems remarkably close the fair tax proposals that are popular with certain parts of the right, but it has the added benefit of helping to encourage recycling and efficient technology.
It's just a matter of moving the tax burden, if something can be changed to make it less energy intensive it will, the rest is just a flat tax.