You're right. Science deals with the things we can know factually. And religion deals with the things we can't know factually. But then by definition, no one religious knows what they are talking about. And therefore they should be ignored.
In fact, its approach is quite the opposite: to maximize compatibility initially (pass almost everything through to a rootless X server with XWayland if you want), and then offer an optional smooth migration path away from X
How is this different from "Embrace, extend, extinguish"? Using X guarantees that I will get certain features from my GUI. If Wayland cannot provide those guarantees, it is a step back. That is not acceptable.
So with Wayland you can STILL run your old legacy X11 apps and get decent performance too!
So? I can do that today. What does adding another layer get me?
Assuming adding the Wayland layer gets me something, what happens to my legacy X11 apps when everyone starts writing Wayland apps instead? Will those native Wayland apps support all the features of X? e.g. network transparency?
I'd actually love to give Netflix my money, but DRM is a deal breaker. I can get better service with torrents and rss, so I do. I'd pay for that too, if it were licensed. But not a penny for DRM.
If he expressed an opinion on that, he would end up being constantly attacked on it
Great, we could finally have a national conversation on a serious issue that's been hurting the country for decades. That's a good thing.
Doubly good for Obama is that all the attacks Republicans would throw at him are easily deflected with actual facts. There are no honest, well meaning arguments for Cannabis prohibition, so Republicans would have to throw dishonest, malicious arguments at him, making them look even worse.
Realistically, if you want to change policy, you have to change public opinion: like it or not,
And what would have happened if the President had said that he was at least in principle in favor of reform? If it's anything like gay marriage, popular opinion would swing in favor of reform.
Cannabis reform isn't happening because it's not popular.
Cannabis reform is favored by at least half of the country according to polls. If our system was anywhere close to being fair, then roughly half of our politicians would be in favor of Cannabis reform. But we can't even get them to admit that this is a serious issue.
In reality, you have the causation reversed. Politicans refuse to treat the issue seriously, which marginalizes those of us who see it as a serious issue.
Which is a different problem than creating a political platform that will have the best results. People will readily vote against their own interests if properly manipulated. Look at all the working class white people who vote Republican, for instance. People are more likely to use analytics to manipulate people into voting against their interests than for their interests.
That's why you don't vote for the party, you vote for the candidate.
Yeah, that worked out really well for Obama voters. No, what you do is vote against the current party system. Anyone who is not a D or R is better than anyone who is. Any of the third party candidates in 2012 would have been better than either Obama or Romney. The most important thing is to break the two party hegemony.
Yes, legalizing won't happen without Congress. But why should that stop the president from answering a question accurately? How are we ever going to convince Congress to implement good policy if we can never get anyone to admit that current policy is bad?
I didn't complain that Obama didn't make Cannabis reform his number one priority. I complained that he failed to answer a simple, factual question after promising he would do so. The right thing to do would have been to say "You're right, there is no reason Cannabis can't be regulated like alcohol, and if a bill comes to my desk I will sign it. But it is a low priority because of these reasons..."
But of course, he couldn't do that, because there are no such reasons that actually sound honest.
What is evil is how to make generally good people collectively manifest "evil" deeds.
Which is exactly what I described in the above post. The War on Drug Users is the perfect example what Thoreau meant when he said "Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."
I think we're both right. It is part of human nature, but it's also evil. Jealousy and greed are also part of human nature, but they still make us do evil things. Good people learn to control those urges. Politicians apparently never learned to control theirs.
There is no single objectively right answer for many questions.
The problem is when there is an objectively right answer, and neither party will stoop to even asking. e.g. Cannabis reform, which I mentioned in this post. Most of our problems are caused not by honest disagreements, but obstinance and dishonesty, and Obama is no exception.
But they do. Warrantless wiretapping, eternal copyright, the war on drug users, the ever increasing militarization of the police, the for-profit prison industry, and a DOJ that cares more about Aaron Swartz than about John Corzine, etc, etc,. The Democrats and Republicans agree on most of the most harmful policies that afflict this country. And when they pretend to disagree (e.g. Rand Paul on domestic drone strikes), it's all for show.
When they write the book on the history of the Information Age, it will be about how we learned to leverage analytics for the common good.
Why do you assume it will be for the common good? Those most able to leverage analytics(the rich, powerful, and well connected) have the most incentive to use them for their own personal gain, regardless of what the common good is.
The thing is you can have mountains of data (which we do). The problem is asking the right questions.
The problem is that those in power dont want to ask the right questions because it will force their hand. e.g., we have mountains of data that show that Cannabis is less harmful than most over the counter drugs. Certainly less harmful than alcohol. So we 75,000 of us get together and ask the President a question. "Why can't we regulate Cannabis like alcohol?"
His response amounted to "Cannabis is a dangerous drug", and he never mentioned alcohol once. He didn't even bother dismissing the question, he failed to acknowledge its existence.
Why would he do that? It's obvious, if he actually considered the question, he would have been unable to come up with an answer that would be consistent with our current policy. He knows that, and he doesn't care that the policy is demonstrably harmful.
You can't deadlock them, you can only deadlock us. The Democrats and Republicans have a lot more in common than they have differences. The rich people who control the Democrats have much more in common with the rich people that control the Republicans than either have with any of us. The worst thing that could happen to the Democratic party is for the Greens to win some major elections.
If the Democrats are 95% wrong, and the Republicans are 99% wrong, that means that 90% of the time they are completely unopposed in doing the wrong thing. If you vote for either Democrats or Republicans, that's what you're voting for.
Both sides are not equally wrong, but that doesn't mean both sides are right. The Republicans are wrong 99% of the time. The Democrats are wrong 95% of the time. Why can't we field a candidate who's right even half the time?
If you vote for the party that's right most often, you're still voting for someone who is almost always wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok - what non-religious country in the past one thousand years do you feel pushed/allowed science to advance better than the Christian countries?
The United States of America.
Answer, you don't. They are orthogonal.
You're right. Science deals with the things we can know factually. And religion deals with the things we can't know factually. But then by definition, no one religious knows what they are talking about. And therefore they should be ignored.
Apple did it and it seems to be working out just fine.
What features are missing from OS X's display system that were present in OS 9?
What features are missing from Wayland that are present in X.
Answer these questions and you'll see why Apple's transition worked well, while Wayland will be a disaster.
In fact, its approach is quite the opposite: to maximize compatibility initially (pass almost everything through to a rootless X server with XWayland if you want), and then offer an optional smooth migration path away from X
How is this different from "Embrace, extend, extinguish"? Using X guarantees that I will get certain features from my GUI. If Wayland cannot provide those guarantees, it is a step back. That is not acceptable.
As you can see REMOTE X WINDOWS SUCKS ...unless you use NX. So the proper solution is not to ditch X, but to build NX into X.
That's a fine argument in theory, but in practice X performs as well as any other display server.
So with Wayland you can STILL run your old legacy X11 apps and get decent performance too!
So? I can do that today. What does adding another layer get me?
Assuming adding the Wayland layer gets me something, what happens to my legacy X11 apps when everyone starts writing Wayland apps instead? Will those native Wayland apps support all the features of X? e.g. network transparency?
AFAIK none of the claimed missing feature of Wayland are even missing
Native Wayland apps will be network transparent by default? I'll be able to continue using my favorite window manager? Citation please!
I'd love to be enthusiastic about Wayland, but everything I've read indicates that it will be a downgrade from X.org.
Wayland have no idea what it is, what it's going to accomplish or how entrenched it already is.
We know what it's not going to accomplish. Network transparancy.
almost all the people behind it are the same people behind X.org.
Then there's no excuse for them to not know how important network transparency is. Shame on them for abandoning such a useful feature.
I'm not aware of anyone trying to use actual facts in recent history.
I'd actually love to give Netflix my money, but DRM is a deal breaker. I can get better service with torrents and rss, so I do. I'd pay for that too, if it were licensed. But not a penny for DRM.
If he expressed an opinion on that, he would end up being constantly attacked on it
Great, we could finally have a national conversation on a serious issue that's been hurting the country for decades. That's a good thing.
Doubly good for Obama is that all the attacks Republicans would throw at him are easily deflected with actual facts. There are no honest, well meaning arguments for Cannabis prohibition, so Republicans would have to throw dishonest, malicious arguments at him, making them look even worse.
Realistically, if you want to change policy, you have to change public opinion: like it or not,
And what would have happened if the President had said that he was at least in principle in favor of reform? If it's anything like gay marriage, popular opinion would swing in favor of reform.
Cannabis reform isn't happening because it's not popular.
Cannabis reform is favored by at least half of the country according to polls. If our system was anywhere close to being fair, then roughly half of our politicians would be in favor of Cannabis reform. But we can't even get them to admit that this is a serious issue.
In reality, you have the causation reversed. Politicans refuse to treat the issue seriously, which marginalizes those of us who see it as a serious issue.
They already are? Who is more hated than Nancy Pelosi? Who is more dangerous than Janet Napolitano? Who has fucked up more than Carly Fiorina?
Which is a different problem than creating a political platform that will have the best results. People will readily vote against their own interests if properly manipulated. Look at all the working class white people who vote Republican, for instance. People are more likely to use analytics to manipulate people into voting against their interests than for their interests.
That's why you don't vote for the party, you vote for the candidate.
Yeah, that worked out really well for Obama voters. No, what you do is vote against the current party system. Anyone who is not a D or R is better than anyone who is. Any of the third party candidates in 2012 would have been better than either Obama or Romney. The most important thing is to break the two party hegemony.
Yes, legalizing won't happen without Congress. But why should that stop the president from answering a question accurately? How are we ever going to convince Congress to implement good policy if we can never get anyone to admit that current policy is bad?
I didn't complain that Obama didn't make Cannabis reform his number one priority. I complained that he failed to answer a simple, factual question after promising he would do so. The right thing to do would have been to say "You're right, there is no reason Cannabis can't be regulated like alcohol, and if a bill comes to my desk I will sign it. But it is a low priority because of these reasons..."
But of course, he couldn't do that, because there are no such reasons that actually sound honest.
What is evil is how to make generally good people collectively manifest "evil" deeds.
Which is exactly what I described in the above post. The War on Drug Users is the perfect example what Thoreau meant when he said "Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."
I think we're both right. It is part of human nature, but it's also evil. Jealousy and greed are also part of human nature, but they still make us do evil things. Good people learn to control those urges. Politicians apparently never learned to control theirs.
There is no single objectively right answer for many questions.
The problem is when there is an objectively right answer, and neither party will stoop to even asking. e.g. Cannabis reform, which I mentioned in this post. Most of our problems are caused not by honest disagreements, but obstinance and dishonesty, and Obama is no exception.
But they do. Warrantless wiretapping, eternal copyright, the war on drug users, the ever increasing militarization of the police, the for-profit prison industry, and a DOJ that cares more about Aaron Swartz than about John Corzine, etc, etc,. The Democrats and Republicans agree on most of the most harmful policies that afflict this country. And when they pretend to disagree (e.g. Rand Paul on domestic drone strikes), it's all for show.
When they write the book on the history of the Information Age, it will be about how we learned to leverage analytics for the common good.
Why do you assume it will be for the common good? Those most able to leverage analytics(the rich, powerful, and well connected) have the most incentive to use them for their own personal gain, regardless of what the common good is.
The thing is you can have mountains of data (which we do). The problem is asking the right questions.
The problem is that those in power dont want to ask the right questions because it will force their hand. e.g., we have mountains of data that show that Cannabis is less harmful than most over the counter drugs. Certainly less harmful than alcohol. So we 75,000 of us get together and ask the President a question. "Why can't we regulate Cannabis like alcohol?"
His response amounted to "Cannabis is a dangerous drug", and he never mentioned alcohol once. He didn't even bother dismissing the question, he failed to acknowledge its existence.
Why would he do that? It's obvious, if he actually considered the question, he would have been unable to come up with an answer that would be consistent with our current policy. He knows that, and he doesn't care that the policy is demonstrably harmful.
That, my friends, is the face of evil.
it's the USA, you guys prefer payment-by-results model
Correct. So we should only pay the camera company when their cameras actually cause a decrease in accidents at the intersection in question.
FWIW, I was nice enough not to make that a LMGTFY link. :D
You can't deadlock them, you can only deadlock us. The Democrats and Republicans have a lot more in common than they have differences. The rich people who control the Democrats have much more in common with the rich people that control the Republicans than either have with any of us. The worst thing that could happen to the Democratic party is for the Greens to win some major elections.
If the Democrats are 95% wrong, and the Republicans are 99% wrong, that means that 90% of the time they are completely unopposed in doing the wrong thing. If you vote for either Democrats or Republicans, that's what you're voting for.
Both sides are not equally wrong, but that doesn't mean both sides are right. The Republicans are wrong 99% of the time. The Democrats are wrong 95% of the time. Why can't we field a candidate who's right even half the time?
If you vote for the party that's right most often, you're still voting for someone who is almost always wrong.