I recently saw an ad on TV that addresses this issue. It's part of an Ad Coucil series of PSAs put out after 9/11. Some of them are rather tame ("Freedom means a well-stocked supermarket") but others, like the Library spot, are quite effective and poignant. Hopefully, they will make people more aware of some of the frightening things that are going on nowadays that _our_ government is doing.
Style sheets mean less code, not more. An XHTML/CSS page is cleaner and simpler than older pages - less spacing tricks (non-breaking spaces, invisible images, convoluted tables), more consistant code, less repeated tags.
As a programmer myself, I don't see why you are more confortable with micromanaging <font> tags rather than defining the page properties once in one central place. Hell, if you want, you can just use embedded style rules and put style="font-family: Verdana" right in the tag you would have wrapped in a <font></font> tag.
... and just read pages 1 and 5. The middle is composed of a longish explanation and history of markup languages and a basic primer on public key encryption. Most/.-type tech-saavy people will already know enough about these topics and the details provided really aren't important to the focus of the article.
But in order to actually find out if the way Plan 9 is actually better, I have go read the Liberty Alliance specifications. That article completely wasted my time.
I have to agree with you here. The extended history of markup languages and primer on public key incryption are completely superfluous and add nothing useful to the article. I keep hearing good things about Plan 9 but he doesn't go into enough detail to understand what is really so great about its model.
How is Palpatine supposed to explain the clone army? "I propose to create a grand Army of the Republic... oh look, I already have one, isn't that handy?" As they said in the movie, it takes years to develop, breed and train a clone army, so coming up with one at the drop of a hat should raise of few eyebrows.
After seeing the US version of Robot Wars, it is the actual UK version but lacking some of the behind the scenes stuff (I think) and with a different presenter (Craig Charles presents it in the UK - he played 'Lister' in Red Dwarf).
A shame they change the host, I'd love to see Craig Charles do it (I'm watching Red Dwarf right now). Unfortunately Cathy Roger has left hosting Junkyard Wars in the US, leaving us with two American hosts... it's just not the same without a Brit.
If you look at life on earth, there is basically only one way to do it. It's all genes and DNA and every complex living thing shares something in common with the others. There is no "artistic expression" that shows up at all.
That's just one level. You could say "all x86 operating systems are the same" since they all run on the same instruction set. For life on earth, 'it' (as in TMTOWTDI) means staying alive and managing to procreate. And there's an amazing variety of interesting and 'artistic' ways.
You said it was "a clip of the the lunar rover moving around the surface of the moon." If you were faking it, I would think you could just shoot some footage of people driving around a rocky area on earth in a lunar rover in a sound stage. I don't see the need for any stop-motion or multi-shot trickery which would introduce the chance for a 'blooper' when someone forgot a rock in one shot.
And even so, even if there were multiple shots and they were spliced together to accomplish some effect, you'd expect the rock to be missing from multiple frames. Why would they splice in only 1 frame from an alternate shot? It doesn't make sense.
To me, if you suppose it is doctored, having an item missing in a single frame suggests that it was either added in the other frames frame-by-frame or removed from this one frame. That is what my earlier argument was based on - if you were going to the painstaking effort of editted frame-by-frame, why would you do it just to add (or substract) a plain old rock? If you wanted the rock in the picture, you'd have put it there in the first place.
... if you do a frame by frame shot of this sequence you can very plainly see a rock APPEAR and then disappear. If anything debunks the moon shot. This is it.
Um, how is this definitive proof that it was staged? Why, if they made the footage on earth and doctored it, would they insert a rock for a single frame? Why would they need to insert rocks anyway, we've got plenty on earth.
More likely (to me) is a defect in the film or in the transmission. They didn't have digital video cameras and mpeg-4 video back then, so I wouldn't expect it to be perfect. Especially if it were shot on the moon.
It was taken in 1972 from the Apollo 17 Command Module, America, orbiting about 100 kilometers above the Moon's surface
los furtive didn't say that the picture was taken by the Hubble; instead he offered it as proof of the difficulty of picking out something so small, giant space telescope or no giant space telescope.
There are many phones that support both rotary and touch-tone dialing. If your local telco only supports rotary, you can use it to dial then toggle the switch on your phone to sent touch-tones for voice mail menus and the like.
Anyhow, I'm glad there are still lots of rotary users. Because of this, many voice mail systems default to live operator if nothing is selected after a certain amount of time. I often use this for systems that make it exceedingly difficult to wade through the options to get to an actual person.
Hear, hear! I noticed a large part of the article was derived from the blog discussion. Translation:
"I was bored at work one day, surfing the web when I found this page where people said 'omg people on cell phones are such morons' and I so totally agree! And I thought 'hey that would make a good article! and i can use people from the web page for my quotes!' and my boss was way impressed that I was working while everyone else was goofing off!"
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting != Insightful
Interesting != Informative
Informative != Insightful
How about "(Interesting) (Informative) (Insightful) are disjoint sets"?
I recently saw an ad on TV that addresses this issue. It's part of an Ad Coucil series of PSAs put out after 9/11. Some of them are rather tame ("Freedom means a well-stocked supermarket") but others, like the Library spot, are quite effective and poignant. Hopefully, they will make people more aware of some of the frightening things that are going on nowadays that _our_ government is doing.
Style sheets mean less code, not more. An XHTML/CSS page is cleaner and simpler than older pages - less spacing tricks (non-breaking spaces, invisible images, convoluted tables), more consistant code, less repeated tags.
As a programmer myself, I don't see why you are more confortable with micromanaging <font> tags rather than defining the page properties once in one central place. Hell, if you want, you can just use embedded style rules and put style="font-family: Verdana" right in the tag you would have wrapped in a <font></font> tag.
... and just read pages 1 and 5. The middle is composed of a longish explanation and history of markup languages and a basic primer on public key encryption. Most /.-type tech-saavy people will already know enough about these topics and the details provided really aren't important to the focus of the article.
But in order to actually find out if the way Plan 9 is actually better, I have go read the Liberty Alliance specifications. That article completely wasted my time.
I have to agree with you here. The extended history of markup languages and primer on public key incryption are completely superfluous and add nothing useful to the article. I keep hearing good things about Plan 9 but he doesn't go into enough detail to understand what is really so great about its model.
How is Palpatine supposed to explain the clone army? "I propose to create a grand Army of the Republic... oh look, I already have one, isn't that handy?" As they said in the movie, it takes years to develop, breed and train a clone army, so coming up with one at the drop of a hat should raise of few eyebrows.
Appropriate cross-marketing -- my friends who owned the first Neons said they had all the structural reliability of a TIE Fighter.
But could it corner as well as a TIE?
The demo of the LucasArts game TIE Fighter was bundled with an ad for the Chrysler Neon which displayed every time you played. This was back in 1994.
After seeing the US version of Robot Wars, it is the actual UK version but lacking some of the behind the scenes stuff (I think) and with a different presenter (Craig Charles presents it in the UK - he played 'Lister' in Red Dwarf).
A shame they change the host, I'd love to see Craig Charles do it (I'm watching Red Dwarf right now). Unfortunately Cathy Roger has left hosting Junkyard Wars in the US, leaving us with two American hosts... it's just not the same without a Brit.
psst... Last time I checked Mercury was the first planet. :-P
You are (of course) correct. I didn't even close the italics tag properly. I clearly wasn't thinking straight.
Surely that should be Mercury Venus ...
That is exceedingly true. I should be modded down into oblivion.
Thank you for your correction.
You make some good practical points, but you forgot the most important element:
CACHING
Better keep those cache expiration intervals high.
You think the lag time to third world countries is bad? Try third world PLANETS.
...)
Don't look now, but we ARE the third world. (Mars, Venus,
If you look at life on earth, there is basically only one way to do it. It's all genes and DNA and every complex living thing shares something in common with the others. There is no "artistic expression" that shows up at all.
That's just one level. You could say "all x86 operating systems are the same" since they all run on the same instruction set. For life on earth, 'it' (as in TMTOWTDI) means staying alive and managing to procreate. And there's an amazing variety of interesting and 'artistic' ways.
You said it was "a clip of the
the lunar rover moving around the surface of the moon." If you were faking it, I would think you could just shoot some footage of people driving around a rocky area on earth in a lunar rover in a sound stage. I don't see the need for any stop-motion or multi-shot trickery which would introduce the chance for a 'blooper' when someone forgot a rock in one shot.
And even so, even if there were multiple shots and they were spliced together to accomplish some effect, you'd expect the rock to be missing from multiple frames. Why would they splice in only 1 frame from an alternate shot? It doesn't make sense.
To me, if you suppose it is doctored, having an item missing in a single frame suggests that it was either added in the other frames frame-by-frame or removed from this one frame. That is what my earlier argument was based on - if you were going to the painstaking effort of editted frame-by-frame, why would you do it just to add (or substract) a plain old rock? If you wanted the rock in the picture, you'd have put it there in the first place.
... if you do a frame by frame shot
of this sequence you can very plainly see a rock APPEAR
and then disappear.
If anything debunks the moon shot. This is it.
Um, how is this definitive proof that it was staged? Why, if they made the footage on earth and doctored it, would they insert a rock for a single frame? Why would they need to insert rocks anyway, we've got plenty on earth.
More likely (to me) is a defect in the film or in the transmission. They didn't have digital video cameras and mpeg-4 video back then, so I wouldn't expect it to be perfect. Especially if it were shot on the moon.
Sorry, but the caption of that picture states:
It was taken in 1972 from the Apollo 17 Command Module, America, orbiting about 100 kilometers above the Moon's surface
los furtive didn't say that the picture was taken by the Hubble; instead he offered it as proof of the difficulty of picking out something so small, giant space telescope or no giant space telescope.
Um, these are all things that they are legally required to tell you anyway. Somehow I don't think that the telemarketer is the real "idiot" here.
Really? I would love to see a source for this.
There are many phones that support both rotary and touch-tone dialing. If your local telco only supports rotary, you can use it to dial then toggle the switch on your phone to sent touch-tones for voice mail menus and the like.
Anyhow, I'm glad there are still lots of rotary users. Because of this, many voice mail systems default to live operator if nothing is selected after a certain amount of time. I often use this for systems that make it exceedingly difficult to wade through the options to get to an actual person.
Hear, hear! I noticed a large part of the article was derived from the blog discussion. Translation:
"I was bored at work one day, surfing the web when I found this page where people said 'omg people on cell phones are such morons' and I so totally agree! And I thought 'hey that would make a good article! and i can use people from the web page for my quotes!' and my boss was way impressed that I was working while everyone else was goofing off!"
Please explain.
Some assembly required
Well of course, everyone knows each Jedi must construct their own personal light saber as part of their training using...
Ah shit, I should have stopped talking long ago, shouldn't I?
"Light saber not included"
A little heads up for the cubicle dwellers... it's Star Wars pr0n.