no its just a bloated corpse ready to pop and make a big mess
I never really understood the appeal of java, yea ok I get its "benefits" but I also get that that usually means I am going to have to install some annoying shit VM that nags me to update every 3 days just so I can run some kiddy script with a bad UI and just qualifying as functional program that runs 9x slower than it really should.
I have yet to see a quality java program the entire time its been out
You're obviously ignorant of the full scope of Java and what it's all used for. You ran maybe what, 3 poorly written Java applications? If it's a really bad application, that usually means it was written poorly. It could be written in GOD language and still suck.
By far the majority of applications written in Java probably don't have a GUI interface at all, anyway.
Re:This site works best with...
on
OK Go Goes HTML5
·
· Score: 1
One, you had "open standard" in quotes, just like I have it right here. You talking about reverse engineering it gave the impression that you were questioning the "open" part more than the "standard" part, which is what I was criticizing in your post. So you talking about the word "standard" in this reply post seems kind of pointless in context of my reply, unless you're telling me I misunderstood you in the first place. However, all you did was decide that I was some kind of fanboy. I swear you can't side with anybody over one thing anymore.
The problem a lot of people had with Microsoft's OOXML (in particular the part where it was supposed to be an international standard) is that Microsoft wanted to restrict it's uses. In addition, it was largely unneeded. A side note to that was that it was more complicated than existing international standards.
If it were Google that offered the OOXML format with the same restrictions MS wanted, I'd feel exactly the same way.
Lastly, WebKit is not owned by Google. It's used in Chrome and they contribute to it. Their implementation on draft specs, at least as far as the browser engine code goes, isn't the "standard". It's just an implementation of a standard, or a proposed standard. Don't be such a drama queen about something that really is open.
None of which makes CSS Animations an "open standard" as things stand.
So now things aren't open if you can't understand it first glance? Now you're just being whiny.
Re:This site works best with...
on
OK Go Goes HTML5
·
· Score: 1
The difference is that IE used proprietary components and deliberately borked standards in order to achieve monopoly,
Google are playing a similar game with WebM, WebP and SPDY. Maybe they're "open" (as in Google dumped a bunch of code and half baked specs out there) but it doesn't mean they're not divisive. We've already seen a schism over WebM and the same is likely to occur with the other specs. It's also likely that since Google holds the reins to these specs that even compliant browsers may find themselves playing continuous catchup to the "reference" browser and looking inferior by comparison.
The only way stuff like WebM is divisive is because the alternative (h264) has a license tied to it with a "promise" of not suing or charging a license fee (as long as it's not "commercial" use). They're just trying to offer a comparable and completely paid-license-free alternative. Is being "divisive" bad in that case? Simple answer: NO. Don't compare IE to Chrome at that point because they're not anywhere the same kind of battle.
The article said the theory of jurisdiction is that the US is claiming jurisdiction over all top-level domains based in the us, so all.com,.net,.org, etc.
Then let them shut down the domain name. Last I checked, a sign made in the USA that points to the nearest pot store in Amsterdam has nothing at all to do with the pot store itself and is completely irrelevant to laws in the USA.
A diverse gene pool is generally better to avoid over-promoting certain genes, that I agree with. However, the chances of some genetic disorders of being a key to survival against some worldwide pandemic is nil. I'm not saying it's not possible, but for a population this large we have a diverse enough gene pool where it probably wouldn't make that much of a difference. It's completely random. Any other gene in the body has just as much of a chance as being the "magic gene" in a pandemic as the genes responsible for some of these hereditary diseases that do nothing except weaken entire genetic lines against everyday things.
It's not like we've stopped mutating. We can do without stuff like Wilson's disease, which is a treatable disease that strikes early and is passed down from parents. You can't possibly claim that having Wilson's disease would somehow save the human race someday. Without treatment, these people would probably die from liver disease. It's not like we're talking about a couple of allergies here. I'm talking about show-stopping (read: would otherwise not reproduce if left untreated) genetic disorders. Modern medicine just allows these genes to flourish where they would otherwise be killed off.
Just remember, one of these "bad" genes, if allowed to propagate, has just as much chance of making us more susceptible to a pandemic as it has making us less susceptible.
Once a certain wealth level is achieved, the number of kids per family is reduced.
This is only a temporary phenomenon at best. Any gene that promotes large families despite high wealth levels will grow exponentially, until it takes over the entire population.
But at this point, it seems to be more a cultural mindset than a genetic deficiency.
Besides, the fact that modern medicine reduces evolutionary pressures allows the general gene diversity to increase anyway, which will help us a lot in the long run precisely because it protects against pandemics.
I disagree with that assessment. The fact that we have modern medicine is actually weakening our gene pool as the normal process of natural selection isn't allowed to take place. We interrupt it, and so poor genes are allowed to propagate with no criteria for survival. Only the worst diseases that hit soon enough or don't allow someone to reproduce are the ones getting weeded out... but of course, we're working to cure those too. I'm not saying we shouldn't help people, but you do have to realize that, ironically, our own evolution (maybe more a civilization evolution) will bring our own demise as a species unless we can figure out how to solve that problem.
It's because of this that I believe gene therapy is the only solution to the problem. But of course, that has some pretty scary consequences as well. Though, for the sake of survival in the long run, I believe it's the next logical step in our evolution as a civilization.
I used "less evolved" in quotes because that term was used frequently in this thread. I never implied anything was actually more or less evolved. I thought that was pretty clear in the very first sentence. But hey, a little more clarity never hurts I suppose.
I didn't say "more evolved", because there is no such thing per se. My whole point was that evolution and genetics are not the same thing. I know what you were saying, though.
Was it worth the trouble? Yes, in the sense that learning how to jailbreak your own phone is a valuable skill, and I got much more functionality out of the Cliq, when I was expecting to simply junk it.
The time spent doing this could have been spent on a billable (or freelance) project that would have paid for a new phone (and then some).
Yes, it's a good feeling to know you beat the technology. And yes, it's your phone and you should be able to do whatever you want with it. But how many times will you have to root the same phone model? Will the process be similar or completely different with your next model? Sometimes the upgraded features are worth your time & effort, and other times it's worth the cost of a better phone.
What's wrong with fun? Freelance work is boring. This person had fun and accomplished something useful for himself in the process.
Maybe Homo Sapiens were breeding like rabbits, while the Neanderthals were disciplined. Except for the ones chasing after the "hot to trot" Homo Sapiens women!
Does that mean that women that have 10+ kids with multiple fathers are genetically superior to women who know how to use birth control? And might even know the name of the men they have sex with?
10,000 years from now, Idiocracy will be real and people will refer to the smart people as being genetically inferior because they were wiped out.
Genetically inferior, no. Evolutionarily (is that a word?) inferior, yes. Smart doesn't necessarily win in natural selection.
Aren't we mixing up the terms "genetically inferior" and "less evolved"? There is such a thing as superior genetics... able to fight off disease better, reproduce better, etc. But that means nothing in natural selection depending on your environment (well, they're usually positive things, but you get the idea). Being a large predator in an era of humans doesn't mean inferior genetics. It means from an evolutionary standpoint, you're at a less desirable position because of environment... but the wolves could still have exceptional genetics regardless. There are many contributing factors to the role of natural selection, and genetics is only one of them.
I think you have a good point. Just as I think the global distribution of race will be a completely different picture in 200 years. We have super fast global travel and people of all races and cultures are living everywhere now. Some have more of a mix than others, but as time goes on there'll be more and more mixing goin' on, and I have a hard time picturing many "purebreds" being born after that.
Which is a great thing from a biological point of view.
Additionally, that page tried claiming that scientists dated neanderthals "post-flood". So.... a few thousand years? Really? How can anybody take that seriously?
To GP: And if you're using a compilation of books written by man, whose compilation itself was chosen by man over a thousand years later... all of which was written from the perspectives of people from a very, very, very limited geographic region as a basis for these outlandish claims (including a global flood) then you're a bigger fool than you even know. Take it for what it is and leave the rest out.
Well, to that I'll say that homeopathy "doctors" are not medical doctors. They're not regulated, and that's why insurance doesn't cover that. In the case of the wart, you're probably fine, but you may as well ask a clown with a steady hand to do the same thing as they're just as qualified.
The bills you get from the doctor aren't as much about covering the cost of freezing the wart off, but more about covering the costs of covering every other sap that comes in and gets free coverage because they can't pay. The hospital has to cover it's own costs somehow. The doctors, believe it or not, are the cheapest part of almost any visit if there's any equipment involved at all.
It's called circumstantial evidence. I doubt it could be used alone to incriminate anybody in a courtroom, but if it's provided in addition with other circumstantial evidence (say, nobody can prove they were somewhere else, phone was found in the suspect's possession later and so it wasn't stolen, nobody else admits to carrying it on them, etc), that kind of thing is often used to build corroborating evidence, which can be enough to put somebody away.
I'm no lawyer, not even an armchair lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Why not be consistent in your reasoning and state that it's immoral to cut any more of the umbilical cord than is absolutely necessary at birth? It is also part of the baby's body. Sure, it might (also) cause health risks to have people with two-feet-long "belly buttons", but who are we to make that decision on somebody else's behalf?
Oh, that's right, parents. Like they make decisions for a broad range of medically-recommendable actions like this, including surgery. Being that the child is incapable of making the decision, and all.
I also find it hypocritical that someone will cry bloody murder about circumcision right after picketing about "women's rights" for abortions, late or not, where the pregnancy was not a result of rape, incest, etc and there were no medical problems. I guess people just like technicalities. Just pick something and stick with it.
Incorrect and stupid response.
Ranting is more than justified on an cosmetic UN-NECESSARY medical procedure being inflicted on a person incapable of defending themselves.
There are no 'risks' on both sides, it's plain FACT that 99.99% of circumcisions are simply not required.
Learn about the subject, don't make stupid posts as if you've got the sensible, sitting in the middle, adult angle on this.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html
Do some reading.
Just a general note that it doesn't help to cite from a website that has an agenda. Just saying. It'd be better to cite medical journals or the like. I immediately called bullshit on a website like this one and passed over it whether it's accurate or not since it's clearly biased.
Tax increases on the rich (who already pay way more than their fair share)
Care to justify that? Even Warren Buffet one of the richest and most respected financiers on the planet has repeatedly stated that we should cut taxes for the poor, and raise them for the rich;
Care to clarify what constitutes as "poor"? Because I'm pretty sure with all the federal credits, programs, etc that only the "poor" qualify for means they don't really pay taxes at all in the first place. Just sayin': it's pretty much just lip-service if you claim to want to lower taxes for the poor.
But how is this ANY different? Google may not be "out to destroy Java or steal it away" but that will be the end result as like MSFT in the 90s Google is the 800 pound gorilla and nobody is gonna wanna write to the Java standard when Google has teh hotness.
They aren't changing any coding standards. You still use the JDK to compile Android applications. They aren't changing, creating derivatives of, or otherwise destroying the Java language in any shape or form. Java as a language is untouched by Google.
What Google did was write their own VM (instead of using Sun's....errr... Oracle's VM) to run those applications in. That's all.
I disagree it is positive to feel jealous about their sexual activity. I might as well be jealous of the social life that they have that I don't.
Consider an alternate society where it was considered unfaithful for your wife to have male friends. You might then feel jealous when you realise she is friends with her boss. I don't see the difference between that situation and the current one in our society re: sex; it's just a matter of where you draw the line.
I call your bullshit. You know, considering that many species of animals that aren't prone to the same religious teachings or cultural stigma also pair up with mates monogamously and will defend them to the death. Hell, even species of fish pair off.
Slashdot Mirror
no its just a bloated corpse ready to pop and make a big mess
I never really understood the appeal of java, yea ok I get its "benefits" but I also get that that usually means I am going to have to install some annoying shit VM that nags me to update every 3 days just so I can run some kiddy script with a bad UI and just qualifying as functional program that runs 9x slower than it really should.
I have yet to see a quality java program the entire time its been out
You're obviously ignorant of the full scope of Java and what it's all used for. You ran maybe what, 3 poorly written Java applications? If it's a really bad application, that usually means it was written poorly. It could be written in GOD language and still suck.
By far the majority of applications written in Java probably don't have a GUI interface at all, anyway.
One, you had "open standard" in quotes, just like I have it right here. You talking about reverse engineering it gave the impression that you were questioning the "open" part more than the "standard" part, which is what I was criticizing in your post. So you talking about the word "standard" in this reply post seems kind of pointless in context of my reply, unless you're telling me I misunderstood you in the first place. However, all you did was decide that I was some kind of fanboy. I swear you can't side with anybody over one thing anymore.
The problem a lot of people had with Microsoft's OOXML (in particular the part where it was supposed to be an international standard) is that Microsoft wanted to restrict it's uses. In addition, it was largely unneeded. A side note to that was that it was more complicated than existing international standards.
If it were Google that offered the OOXML format with the same restrictions MS wanted, I'd feel exactly the same way.
Lastly, WebKit is not owned by Google. It's used in Chrome and they contribute to it. Their implementation on draft specs, at least as far as the browser engine code goes, isn't the "standard". It's just an implementation of a standard, or a proposed standard. Don't be such a drama queen about something that really is open.
My god, I cannot believe how whiny everybody is being about this. For fuck's sake, nobody's twisting your arm.
Actually, just black-box reverse engineering is simpler in this case than trying to sort through their code.
And yes, someone did do it for me. And then I reviewed their work: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435442
None of which makes CSS Animations an "open standard" as things stand.
So now things aren't open if you can't understand it first glance? Now you're just being whiny.
The difference is that IE used proprietary components and deliberately borked standards in order to achieve monopoly,
Google are playing a similar game with WebM, WebP and SPDY. Maybe they're "open" (as in Google dumped a bunch of code and half baked specs out there) but it doesn't mean they're not divisive. We've already seen a schism over WebM and the same is likely to occur with the other specs. It's also likely that since Google holds the reins to these specs that even compliant browsers may find themselves playing continuous catchup to the "reference" browser and looking inferior by comparison.
The only way stuff like WebM is divisive is because the alternative (h264) has a license tied to it with a "promise" of not suing or charging a license fee (as long as it's not "commercial" use). They're just trying to offer a comparable and completely paid-license-free alternative. Is being "divisive" bad in that case? Simple answer: NO. Don't compare IE to Chrome at that point because they're not anywhere the same kind of battle.
The article said the theory of jurisdiction is that the US is claiming jurisdiction over all top-level domains based in the us, so all .com, .net, .org, etc.
Then let them shut down the domain name. Last I checked, a sign made in the USA that points to the nearest pot store in Amsterdam has nothing at all to do with the pot store itself and is completely irrelevant to laws in the USA.
A diverse gene pool is generally better to avoid over-promoting certain genes, that I agree with. However, the chances of some genetic disorders of being a key to survival against some worldwide pandemic is nil. I'm not saying it's not possible, but for a population this large we have a diverse enough gene pool where it probably wouldn't make that much of a difference. It's completely random. Any other gene in the body has just as much of a chance as being the "magic gene" in a pandemic as the genes responsible for some of these hereditary diseases that do nothing except weaken entire genetic lines against everyday things.
It's not like we've stopped mutating. We can do without stuff like Wilson's disease, which is a treatable disease that strikes early and is passed down from parents. You can't possibly claim that having Wilson's disease would somehow save the human race someday. Without treatment, these people would probably die from liver disease. It's not like we're talking about a couple of allergies here. I'm talking about show-stopping (read: would otherwise not reproduce if left untreated) genetic disorders. Modern medicine just allows these genes to flourish where they would otherwise be killed off.
Just remember, one of these "bad" genes, if allowed to propagate, has just as much chance of making us more susceptible to a pandemic as it has making us less susceptible.
This is only a temporary phenomenon at best. Any gene that promotes large families despite high wealth levels will grow exponentially, until it takes over the entire population.
But at this point, it seems to be more a cultural mindset than a genetic deficiency.
Besides, the fact that modern medicine reduces evolutionary pressures allows the general gene diversity to increase anyway, which will help us a lot in the long run precisely because it protects against pandemics.
I disagree with that assessment. The fact that we have modern medicine is actually weakening our gene pool as the normal process of natural selection isn't allowed to take place. We interrupt it, and so poor genes are allowed to propagate with no criteria for survival. Only the worst diseases that hit soon enough or don't allow someone to reproduce are the ones getting weeded out... but of course, we're working to cure those too. I'm not saying we shouldn't help people, but you do have to realize that, ironically, our own evolution (maybe more a civilization evolution) will bring our own demise as a species unless we can figure out how to solve that problem.
It's because of this that I believe gene therapy is the only solution to the problem. But of course, that has some pretty scary consequences as well. Though, for the sake of survival in the long run, I believe it's the next logical step in our evolution as a civilization.
I used "less evolved" in quotes because that term was used frequently in this thread. I never implied anything was actually more or less evolved. I thought that was pretty clear in the very first sentence. But hey, a little more clarity never hurts I suppose.
I didn't say "more evolved", because there is no such thing per se. My whole point was that evolution and genetics are not the same thing. I know what you were saying, though.
Was it worth it? Maybe.
Was it worth the trouble? Yes, in the sense that learning how to jailbreak your own phone is a valuable skill, and I got much more functionality out of the Cliq, when I was expecting to simply junk it.
The time spent doing this could have been spent on a billable (or freelance) project that would have paid for a new phone (and then some). Yes, it's a good feeling to know you beat the technology. And yes, it's your phone and you should be able to do whatever you want with it. But how many times will you have to root the same phone model? Will the process be similar or completely different with your next model? Sometimes the upgraded features are worth your time & effort, and other times it's worth the cost of a better phone.
What's wrong with fun? Freelance work is boring. This person had fun and accomplished something useful for himself in the process.
Maybe Homo Sapiens were breeding like rabbits, while the Neanderthals were disciplined. Except for the ones chasing after the "hot to trot" Homo Sapiens women!
Does that mean that women that have 10+ kids with multiple fathers are genetically superior to women who know how to use birth control? And might even know the name of the men they have sex with?
10,000 years from now, Idiocracy will be real and people will refer to the smart people as being genetically inferior because they were wiped out.
Genetically inferior, no. Evolutionarily (is that a word?) inferior, yes. Smart doesn't necessarily win in natural selection.
Aren't we mixing up the terms "genetically inferior" and "less evolved"? There is such a thing as superior genetics... able to fight off disease better, reproduce better, etc. But that means nothing in natural selection depending on your environment (well, they're usually positive things, but you get the idea). Being a large predator in an era of humans doesn't mean inferior genetics. It means from an evolutionary standpoint, you're at a less desirable position because of environment... but the wolves could still have exceptional genetics regardless. There are many contributing factors to the role of natural selection, and genetics is only one of them.
I think you have a good point. Just as I think the global distribution of race will be a completely different picture in 200 years. We have super fast global travel and people of all races and cultures are living everywhere now. Some have more of a mix than others, but as time goes on there'll be more and more mixing goin' on, and I have a hard time picturing many "purebreds" being born after that.
Which is a great thing from a biological point of view.
Additionally, that page tried claiming that scientists dated neanderthals "post-flood". So.... a few thousand years? Really? How can anybody take that seriously?
To GP: And if you're using a compilation of books written by man, whose compilation itself was chosen by man over a thousand years later... all of which was written from the perspectives of people from a very, very, very limited geographic region as a basis for these outlandish claims (including a global flood) then you're a bigger fool than you even know. Take it for what it is and leave the rest out.
Well, to that I'll say that homeopathy "doctors" are not medical doctors. They're not regulated, and that's why insurance doesn't cover that. In the case of the wart, you're probably fine, but you may as well ask a clown with a steady hand to do the same thing as they're just as qualified.
The bills you get from the doctor aren't as much about covering the cost of freezing the wart off, but more about covering the costs of covering every other sap that comes in and gets free coverage because they can't pay. The hospital has to cover it's own costs somehow. The doctors, believe it or not, are the cheapest part of almost any visit if there's any equipment involved at all.
It's called circumstantial evidence. I doubt it could be used alone to incriminate anybody in a courtroom, but if it's provided in addition with other circumstantial evidence (say, nobody can prove they were somewhere else, phone was found in the suspect's possession later and so it wasn't stolen, nobody else admits to carrying it on them, etc), that kind of thing is often used to build corroborating evidence, which can be enough to put somebody away.
I'm no lawyer, not even an armchair lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If anything proves how broken the US patent office is, it'd be this. What the hell?!?
Why not be consistent in your reasoning and state that it's immoral to cut any more of the umbilical cord than is absolutely necessary at birth? It is also part of the baby's body. Sure, it might (also) cause health risks to have people with two-feet-long "belly buttons", but who are we to make that decision on somebody else's behalf?
Oh, that's right, parents. Like they make decisions for a broad range of medically-recommendable actions like this, including surgery. Being that the child is incapable of making the decision, and all.
I also find it hypocritical that someone will cry bloody murder about circumcision right after picketing about "women's rights" for abortions, late or not, where the pregnancy was not a result of rape, incest, etc and there were no medical problems. I guess people just like technicalities. Just pick something and stick with it.
Incorrect and stupid response. Ranting is more than justified on an cosmetic UN-NECESSARY medical procedure being inflicted on a person incapable of defending themselves. There are no 'risks' on both sides, it's plain FACT that 99.99% of circumcisions are simply not required. Learn about the subject, don't make stupid posts as if you've got the sensible, sitting in the middle, adult angle on this. http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html
Do some reading.
Just a general note that it doesn't help to cite from a website that has an agenda. Just saying. It'd be better to cite medical journals or the like. I immediately called bullshit on a website like this one and passed over it whether it's accurate or not since it's clearly biased.
Kinda reminds me of everybody being accused of being a communist back in the day.
Tax increases on the rich (who already pay way more than their fair share)
Care to justify that? Even Warren Buffet one of the richest and most respected financiers on the planet has repeatedly stated that we should cut taxes for the poor, and raise them for the rich;
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/05/buffett-says-cut-taxes-for-the-poor/
Care to clarify what constitutes as "poor"? Because I'm pretty sure with all the federal credits, programs, etc that only the "poor" qualify for means they don't really pay taxes at all in the first place. Just sayin': it's pretty much just lip-service if you claim to want to lower taxes for the poor.
It'd mean more if you said "middle-class".
But how is this ANY different? Google may not be "out to destroy Java or steal it away" but that will be the end result as like MSFT in the 90s Google is the 800 pound gorilla and nobody is gonna wanna write to the Java standard when Google has teh hotness.
They aren't changing any coding standards. You still use the JDK to compile Android applications. They aren't changing, creating derivatives of, or otherwise destroying the Java language in any shape or form. Java as a language is untouched by Google.
What Google did was write their own VM (instead of using Sun's....errr... Oracle's VM) to run those applications in. That's all.
I disagree it is positive to feel jealous about their sexual activity. I might as well be jealous of the social life that they have that I don't. Consider an alternate society where it was considered unfaithful for your wife to have male friends. You might then feel jealous when you realise she is friends with her boss. I don't see the difference between that situation and the current one in our society re: sex; it's just a matter of where you draw the line.
I call your bullshit. You know, considering that many species of animals that aren't prone to the same religious teachings or cultural stigma also pair up with mates monogamously and will defend them to the death. Hell, even species of fish pair off.
You're just in denial.