An optional flag that has no enforcement mechanism is just asking for government intervention. In any case I don't think DNT will survive, and something else will come in to make ad companies rethink their strategy.
Do you remember the debate about blocking pop-up windows? Very similar complaints from advertisers who said they were 'financing the development of the web' (what a bunch of bullshit, they are just profiting from it). Yet every browser blocks them by default now. I await the day when (tracking) ads will be blocked by default by most major browsers. It's time to take the web back. HTTP is meant to be a stateless protocol.
And yet now almost all major browsers block popups by default.
DNT in some ways was the last resort for ad companies. In the near future all browsersmnow come with adblock. It would be interesting, in the current Apple-Google war, if Apple made Safari block all adds by default. I for one would welcome the web without all the visual pollution.
You think ad networks will be the one who honor DNT? The very same people who profit by tracking?
Frankly I think the whole thing would be better if adblock was just installed by default in every browser.
Ads are nothing less than visual pollution. Tracking is also one of the reasons that we have cookies and all the other security problems with the web. HTTP was meant to be a stateless protocol and should remain so.
Well the Europeans at least had elementary sanitation and in general knew about city life. The native Americans hadn't yet invented the wheel. That might have some bearing on the infection rates.
To be honest most of what religious people rally for or against is truly speaking 'junk' in the sense that it is irrational or not understandable. Maybe they think that the world must be perfect in order for their perfect God to exist? Perhaps their notion of God doesn't accept 'felicitous faults'? But really, even the medieval theologians would accept that not everything in the world is ideal. Much of what is called religion today is just emotion, so I do think there is any more of an answer for you than "it insults my dna and or the creator of my dna".
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. " [Hamlet,1,v]
"No discernible effects on their cell viability" - that is to say, as yet to be discerned. Nature has a way of surprising us, and I dare say that is half the fun. Calling something 'junk' just doesn't do justice to the fact that the organism lives in spite of our lack of understanding it. Calling something 'useless' is really not progressing knowledge in my humble opinion. Better to shelve it off to "don't know yet why it is like this" than to write it off as useless.
In fact in some assembly language programs a NOP is often the most elegant operation, especially if you want self-modifying code.
So all in all, an interesting OS - security worse than Windows (i.e., none at all - just random strings of genetic code can alter the OS - you don't neve need root! just physical access!), yet it really works by sheer number of copies.
Yet just a small mutation can have disastrous consequences for the organism. Just insuring the number of copies is not enough. What is interesting is that the DNA copying process actually prevents 'forking' the source code :
In fact you need a bit more than 'root' to modify the genetic code. In a certain way DNA has more security than any operating system - imagine that DNA synthesis is going on in your body at several million pairs a sec, and yet you are still the same person. Some operating systems have trouble copying a single file that many times and keeping data integrity.
In this case however, you truly get what you pay for. Lion Server is nothing in comparison to Windows Server, though it might be enough for many people.
We learned that decay rates were random, but with a certain statistical mean.
Often in science 'random' is a word for 'we don't know yet how'. Finding out how is really the fun part. Now that there is some sort of link to solar radiation and decay rates, we can be closer to seeing how decay rates might not be so random but even predictable.
Perhaps that workstation will be for CAD design and computer simulation? The design itself is perhaps little more than a sketch at the moment but with a bit of funding they could determine if it is more promising.
It looks like a fairly clever idea. With the funds it might lead to something - but as the article says, this is something for 20 years in the future.
So when the incandescent bulb was "banned", did people suddenly need a lot of them?
For different definitions of need, yes. Needs are not just clothing and shelter, but also entertainment, allaying of fears, and whatever fulfills in somewhat a human want. Your example of incandescent bulbs is just simple supply and demand - bulbs need to be replaced, but removing an option that is cheaper suddenly makes that option more attractive or "necessary".
As for the verdict, you are right that the Jury only has decided. The judge has still to confirm it, though many commentators say that it would be exceptional if the judge overturned their verdict. So in a sense "qui tacet, consentit"'.
This is a classic example of the 'post-hoc' ergo 'propter-hoc' fallacy.
The fact that the trial was against Samsung really has very little to do with how many units they sold. People buy stuff mostly because it responds to a (perceived) need, not because some judge in California thinks they stole something from Apple.
If anything it only gave them free advertising, but that doesn't necessarily lead to sales, especially since the advertising is somewhat negative.
Actually the American Constitution only applies to the subjects of the Constitution, that is, to American citizens. Those who are not American citizens of course shouldn't possess the rights of an American Constitution.
It is interesting to note that the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man do not have a clause corresponding to the right to bear arms.
And actually Australia has a lot of desert and geologically stable land where noone lives, which is perfect for storing spent fuel.
I nominate Australia for this great project. Politically it might even be viable as it is far from most people (kilometer-wise) and also close to US and UK politically that it might pass UN muster.
It used to be that Ubuntu was for people who didn't know how linux worked.
Well, now it seems that Mint fills this gap. Seriously, if at the beginning of install you have to get rid of what distinguishes a distro from the others, there is really no point to using that distro.
Butter and honey on warm toast is delicious, but it does tend to get everywhere especially as you try to read headlines and eat breakfast at the same time.
I would say for many simple tasks the ipad is fine, but as soon as you start citing something in your report (for instance searching the web for an article, trying to copy the citation to the document), the ipad becomes very inefficient. Ipads can do one thing well enough, but try doing things in two apps at once and it gets woefully tedious. For basic writing the ipad is fine, but try doing any editing and it is just painful.
One of the reasons editing is painful is not just the lack of keyboard, but the fact you can't have two windows or apps side by side. Full screen apps have their place in things like video or image editing, but there are many activities where you need many different views of the object to work with it.
As a teacher I have seen reports made on an ipad and there is a noticeable difference - the complete lack of citations for instance, strange spellings that are uncorrrected. Many times the work is substandard because the tool itself is not made for serious writing, or makes it so difficult that the writer just leaves it as it is.
No citation given because I wrote this on my ipad.
Slashdot doesn't work with unicode. Even copy/paste is a mess.
I know, for a tech site, this is unpardonable. Even redneck forum software works with utf-8 but the owners of slashdot can't even pony up to pay for professional code... I wonder if any of that ad revenue goes into infrastructure.
Yet private sector corporations are often the ones the government turns to in order to implement a government project. The government doesn't build airplanes, Boeing actually does. Many of the cost overruns in government projects are actually due to the private corporation going over-budget, not due to the government itself.
Perhaps something can be done to have the government actually build factories in order to build planes? It would seem better that the public workforce actually produce public goods. The contracting out of these kinds of projects actually seems as one of the sources of waste - just as in a company you pay more for subcontracting out than doing in house. Why doesn't the government just in-house their projects? It would seem to provide more stability, accountability and security.
Slashdot Mirror
An optional flag that has no enforcement mechanism is just asking for government intervention. In any case I don't think DNT will survive, and something else will come in to make ad companies rethink their strategy.
Do you remember the debate about blocking pop-up windows? Very similar complaints from advertisers who said they were 'financing the development of the web' (what a bunch of bullshit, they are just profiting from it). Yet every browser blocks them by default now. I await the day when (tracking) ads will be blocked by default by most major browsers. It's time to take the web back. HTTP is meant to be a stateless protocol.
And yet now almost all major browsers block popups by default.
DNT in some ways was the last resort for ad companies. In the near future all browsersmnow come with adblock. It would be interesting, in the current Apple-Google war, if Apple made Safari block all adds by default. I for one would welcome the web without all the visual pollution.
You think ad networks will be the one who honor DNT? The very same people who profit by tracking?
Frankly I think the whole thing would be better if adblock was just installed by default in every browser.
Ads are nothing less than visual pollution. Tracking is also one of the reasons that we have cookies and all the other security problems with the web. HTTP was meant to be a stateless protocol and should remain so.
I hope you simply forgot the /sarcasm tag.
Well the Europeans at least had elementary sanitation and in general knew about city life. The native Americans hadn't yet invented the wheel. That might have some bearing on the infection rates.
To be honest most of what religious people rally for or against is truly speaking 'junk' in the sense that it is irrational or not understandable. Maybe they think that the world must be perfect in order for their perfect God to exist? Perhaps their notion of God doesn't accept 'felicitous faults'? But really, even the medieval theologians would accept that not everything in the world is ideal. Much of what is called religion today is just emotion, so I do think there is any more of an answer for you than "it insults my dna and or the creator of my dna".
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. " [Hamlet,1,v]
"No discernible effects on their cell viability" - that is to say, as yet to be discerned. Nature has a way of surprising us, and I dare say that is half the fun. Calling something 'junk' just doesn't do justice to the fact that the organism lives in spite of our lack of understanding it. Calling something 'useless' is really not progressing knowledge in my humble opinion. Better to shelve it off to "don't know yet why it is like this" than to write it off as useless.
In fact in some assembly language programs a NOP is often the most elegant operation, especially if you want self-modifying code.
Well, I can do one better - a programming language for DNA computing (so you can not only compile to dna, but even compute with it) :
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/dna/
Yet just a small mutation can have disastrous consequences for the organism. Just insuring the number of copies is not enough. What is interesting is that the DNA copying process actually prevents 'forking' the source code :
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-dna-replication-checkpoint-and-preserving-genomic-14157692
In fact you need a bit more than 'root' to modify the genetic code. In a certain way DNA has more security than any operating system - imagine that DNA synthesis is going on in your body at several million pairs a sec, and yet you are still the same person. Some operating systems have trouble copying a single file that many times and keeping data integrity.
In this case however, you truly get what you pay for. Lion Server is nothing in comparison to Windows Server, though it might be enough for many people.
Many thanks for the very interesting links.
We learned that decay rates were random, but with a certain statistical mean.
Often in science 'random' is a word for 'we don't know yet how'. Finding out how is really the fun part. Now that there is some sort of link to solar radiation and decay rates, we can be closer to seeing how decay rates might not be so random but even predictable.
Perhaps that workstation will be for CAD design and computer simulation? The design itself is perhaps little more than a sketch at the moment but with a bit of funding they could determine if it is more promising.
It looks like a fairly clever idea. With the funds it might lead to something - but as the article says, this is something for 20 years in the future.
And so would an attack 'ad hominem' be proof of a finer education?
So when the incandescent bulb was "banned", did people suddenly need a lot of them?
For different definitions of need, yes. Needs are not just clothing and shelter, but also entertainment, allaying of fears, and whatever fulfills in somewhat a human want. Your example of incandescent bulbs is just simple supply and demand - bulbs need to be replaced, but removing an option that is cheaper suddenly makes that option more attractive or "necessary".
As for the verdict, you are right that the Jury only has decided. The judge has still to confirm it, though many commentators say that it would be exceptional if the judge overturned their verdict. So in a sense "qui tacet, consentit"'.
This is a classic example of the 'post-hoc' ergo 'propter-hoc' fallacy.
The fact that the trial was against Samsung really has very little to do with how many units they sold. People buy stuff mostly because it responds to a (perceived) need, not because some judge in California thinks they stole something from Apple.
If anything it only gave them free advertising, but that doesn't necessarily lead to sales, especially since the advertising is somewhat negative.
Actually the American Constitution only applies to the subjects of the Constitution, that is, to American citizens. Those who are not American citizens of course shouldn't possess the rights of an American Constitution.
It is interesting to note that the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man do not have a clause corresponding to the right to bear arms.
And actually Australia has a lot of desert and geologically stable land where noone lives, which is perfect for storing spent fuel.
I nominate Australia for this great project. Politically it might even be viable as it is far from most people (kilometer-wise) and also close to US and UK politically that it might pass UN muster.
I think VM's have made most of that effort simply not worth it. Much easier to build a VM container than linking tons of compatibility libraries.
Well, I think he made a decision....
But seriously, let it go. No need to insult the guy and only confirm his opinion of linux drama queens.
It used to be that Ubuntu was for people who didn't know how linux worked.
Well, now it seems that Mint fills this gap. Seriously, if at the beginning of install you have to get rid of what distinguishes a distro from the others, there is really no point to using that distro.
Butter and honey on warm toast is delicious, but it does tend to get everywhere especially as you try to read headlines and eat breakfast at the same time.
I would say for many simple tasks the ipad is fine, but as soon as you start citing something in your report (for instance searching the web for an article, trying to copy the citation to the document), the ipad becomes very inefficient. Ipads can do one thing well enough, but try doing things in two apps at once and it gets woefully tedious. For basic writing the ipad is fine, but try doing any editing and it is just painful.
One of the reasons editing is painful is not just the lack of keyboard, but the fact you can't have two windows or apps side by side. Full screen apps have their place in things like video or image editing, but there are many activities where you need many different views of the object to work with it.
As a teacher I have seen reports made on an ipad and there is a noticeable difference - the complete lack of citations for instance, strange spellings that are uncorrrected. Many times the work is substandard because the tool itself is not made for serious writing, or makes it so difficult that the writer just leaves it as it is.
No citation given because I wrote this on my ipad.
Slashdot doesn't work with unicode. Even copy/paste is a mess.
I know, for a tech site, this is unpardonable. Even redneck forum software works with utf-8 but the owners of slashdot can't even pony up to pay for professional code... I wonder if any of that ad revenue goes into infrastructure.
Yet private sector corporations are often the ones the government turns to in order to implement a government project. The government doesn't build airplanes, Boeing actually does. Many of the cost overruns in government projects are actually due to the private corporation going over-budget, not due to the government itself.
Perhaps something can be done to have the government actually build factories in order to build planes? It would seem better that the public workforce actually produce public goods. The contracting out of these kinds of projects actually seems as one of the sources of waste - just as in a company you pay more for subcontracting out than doing in house. Why doesn't the government just in-house their projects? It would seem to provide more stability, accountability and security.
Well, duh, that is why money was wasted paying twice for the same thing !