Who said that they couldn't make the system any worse?
That takes more than a lack of intelligence or a lack of common sense, it takes a lack of that something special that sets politicians apart from the rest of us.
All this will do, literally, is further screw poor kids with the digital divide. Does anyone honestly think this will be an issue for rich kids? They have computers at home.
Which will help the poor kids: the rich kids will be copying shite out of Wikipedia while the poor ones might actually go and learn something.
I reckon you are moralising: "Amazon is bad because they are doing what I think is wrong."
And the problem with that is what exactly? That is why we have laws against murder, rape, fraud, and a hell of a lot of other crimes which are judged bad because the democratic entity known as "society" think they are wrong.
In fact, there is no better reason for something to be disallowed than the moral beliefs of the people. So, drop the "moralising is a dirty word" crap or go live on an island on your own.
No, it's about Japan getting pissed off that GooTube pulled a video making fun of the Thai King and that they refused to do something similar for Japan.
Well, the article doesn't say that anywhere, although I can see how you could read that into it.
Unless you are actually needing to see more things at the same time, extra monitors are a waste of desk space and electricity. Get some virtual desktops set up and connect them to your function keys (or alt-function keys). If you then only open any given app on the same virtual desktop you can jump back and forth very quickly. I been using WindowMaker this way for years, with each virtual desktop having its own dock of applications so I know I'll always, for example, open Inkscape on desktop/fn key #4, and Opera on #2 etc. I assume the same or similar thing can be done on Windows and the Mac.
The software being open-source doesn't give me the ability to know what the device is doing any more than the law being published and accessible gives me the ability to be my own lawyer.
Try to remember that neither most lawyers nor most developers are anything special: on average any given lawyer has only a 50% chance of wining a case, which is hardly high-performance, and one only needs to look at the state of software to see that most developers are not outstanding either (hello, Vista). You can learn the basics of programming or the law in a week of part-time study; the rest is practice.
You must be young. The 386 was so much better than the mess that was the 8086 and the super mess that was the 80286.
Well, you must be so old that you've forgotten in your senility that people other than Intel and AMD make chips, and compared to many of them the 386 design was a pile of shite, which it remains to this day. The "advances" in the family's design have all been driven by hugely inefficient "throw more transistors at it" designs, leaving the programming model (particularly the userland programming model) fundamentally unchanged and stuck in the 70's.
The x86 instruction set was garbage the day the 386 was unvieled and continues to be garbage today. The big change in the amd64 set is PC-relative addressing. Biiig deal; we had that 30 years ago on 8 and 16 bit processors. Compilers have generally mastered the x86 set but only in as far such a thing can be done; the original x86 instruction set still requires insane amounts of register juggling to get around the huge numbers of arbitary restrictions in the register set (one one general purpose register was a fucking joke in the 1980's; in 2007 it's disgusting). But all that effort could have gone into genuine optimisations instead of just workarounds and hacks pretending to be optimisations.
Amd64 isn't much better: I want more than one bloody stack pointer, thanks. Is there some sort of shortage?
It's the same reason why Americans think the rest of the world is constantly having some horrific natural disaster, fighting internal wars, or attending lavish film festivals.
We can all sleep safer in our beds tonight knowing that teaching kids that violence is a form of entertainment doesn't make them into psycho-killers in 20 minutes flat.
For example, being a PhD on a subject does not mean that you're unbiased regarding that subject. It doesn't mean that you're incapable of being wrong about that subject. It doesn't mean that there aren't non-PhDs who know more than you do.
This is all true, but even more so if you don't have a PhD.
"Appeal to authority" is listed among "logical fallacies" for a reason.
True again. However, an encyclopedia's entire reason is to be an appeal to authority for those who do not have the time to go to primary sources. An encyclopedia is not meant to produce a detailed proof of the information within it. It is meant to be an edited compilation of overviews by experts in the fields covered. It can never be NPOV. The fact that WP even has POV as a means of rejecting material is a reflection of how uncontrolled the editing is.
If you can't debate your point...
What the hell is a debate doing in an encyclopedia?
Do we really want the Wikipedia to be based on authority, rather than on demonstrably good information?
Both would be good, but in the absence of the latter the former would do.
The reality is that a reference work is for people not in a position to find out if the information can be demonstrated to be good; they're looking up stuff to save time, they probably don't want to spend that time in checking your assertions, they want a source they can trust. You can argue all you want about whether that's a good idea or not but the moment you call yourself an encyclopedia then you have set yourself up as an authority.
If you don't want to be treated as an encyclopedia then, fine, don't call yourself one. Wikipedia's editors want it both ways: they want the pissing-rights of being editors and contributors to an "encyclopedia" but they don't want to have to produce the good when it comes to reliability. The bottom line is that there'd be a lot less people keen to be a part of a wiki-based version of "Believe it or Not!", but that is all WP is or ever can be with its current methodology.
The Party ostracizes him. John Kerry, who voted for it, runs for President as "anti-war". Hillary Clinton, who voted for it, now wants the Party nomination to run for President whilst paying lip-service to the "anti-war" crowd.
I think this is ignoring the number of people on all sides who were fooled by the fake WMD info. Dems and Reps both believed Colin Powel's presentation to the UN, including such gems as the UK-made hydrogen trucks - with US DoD export approval - being presented as mobile WMD factories.
I have no problem with people who were fooled, later saying that they are against the war. In fact, I have a lot less of a problem with them than with people who are still saying it was a good idea after all the subsequent events and revelations, whatever party they are from.
Not being upheld in the UK aside, didn't they have proof to show the courts...
It was more important to establish the point that the US judicial system is not a "world court" able to haul anyone in at a whim to spend a small fortune defending themselves against spurious actions which should never have reached a trial. The fact that the judge was a total moron who was unable to see through a pathetic tissue of lies shows how dangerous it would have been to have allowed any person from Spamhaus to become a literal captive hostage in the US while this was being sorted out.
in one of those rare cases where the compiler doesn't generate efficient code?
Rare?! All compilers generate inefficient code almost all the time. However, with faster processors today "inefficient" is usually fast enough. A human who understands the problem can always at least match any compiler, and almost always beat it, but the development time is normally a bigger issue than the execution time.
I'd say it's you overlooking the word "the." They don't say "an," which would be necessary to support your position.
?!
The text
This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited?
contains the word "the" only twice: "the private use of..." and "the NFL's consent..." neither of which have anything to do with the clause specifying what you can't do. What are you talking about?
Translation: MAPS put a persistent spammer's machines in the RBL. AboveNet and Teleglobe black-hole things in the RBL at the router level. Spammer doesn't like this.
Okay, I give in. I've read the article twice and I can't see what part you are referring to. Please explain.
Slashdot Mirror
That takes more than a lack of intelligence or a lack of common sense, it takes a lack of that something special that sets politicians apart from the rest of us.
TWW
Which will help the poor kids: the rich kids will be copying shite out of Wikipedia while the poor ones might actually go and learn something.
TWW
Well said. Theresa caused untold suffering and death wherever she went; there have been few more disgusting humans alive in my lifetime.
TWW
And the problem with that is what exactly? That is why we have laws against murder, rape, fraud, and a hell of a lot of other crimes which are judged bad because the democratic entity known as "society" think they are wrong.
In fact, there is no better reason for something to be disallowed than the moral beliefs of the people. So, drop the "moralising is a dirty word" crap or go live on an island on your own.
TWW
Over here! Got it in January from Argos. I had to order it, though, and then wait 24hrs.
Great fun.
TWW
Just use a copy of a dead Mac; it's not like they're hard to find.
TWW
Well, the article doesn't say that anywhere, although I can see how you could read that into it.
TWW
You do know that this article is about Japan and not Thailand?
TWW
Try to remember that neither most lawyers nor most developers are anything special: on average any given lawyer has only a 50% chance of wining a case, which is hardly high-performance, and one only needs to look at the state of software to see that most developers are not outstanding either (hello, Vista). You can learn the basics of programming or the law in a week of part-time study; the rest is practice.
TWW
Another terrible house rule that lengthens the game.
TWW
Beautiful chip; and so easy to write a compiler for too (not to mention an assembler/disassembler) compared to Intel's mad opcode map.
TWW
Well, you must be so old that you've forgotten in your senility that people other than Intel and AMD make chips, and compared to many of them the 386 design was a pile of shite, which it remains to this day. The "advances" in the family's design have all been driven by hugely inefficient "throw more transistors at it" designs, leaving the programming model (particularly the userland programming model) fundamentally unchanged and stuck in the 70's.
TWW
Amd64 isn't much better: I want more than one bloody stack pointer, thanks. Is there some sort of shortage?
TWW
But, we are!
TWW
Fuck a doodle-do. Quality work there.
Expect to see a lot of yellow lights at party rallies from now on...
For example, being a PhD on a subject does not mean that you're unbiased regarding that subject. It doesn't mean that you're incapable of being wrong about that subject. It doesn't mean that there aren't non-PhDs who know more than you do.
This is all true, but even more so if you don't have a PhD.
"Appeal to authority" is listed among "logical fallacies" for a reason.
True again. However, an encyclopedia's entire reason is to be an appeal to authority for those who do not have the time to go to primary sources. An encyclopedia is not meant to produce a detailed proof of the information within it. It is meant to be an edited compilation of overviews by experts in the fields covered. It can never be NPOV. The fact that WP even has POV as a means of rejecting material is a reflection of how uncontrolled the editing is.
If you can't debate your point...
What the hell is a debate doing in an encyclopedia?
Do we really want the Wikipedia to be based on authority, rather than on demonstrably good information?
Both would be good, but in the absence of the latter the former would do.
The reality is that a reference work is for people not in a position to find out if the information can be demonstrated to be good; they're looking up stuff to save time, they probably don't want to spend that time in checking your assertions, they want a source they can trust. You can argue all you want about whether that's a good idea or not but the moment you call yourself an encyclopedia then you have set yourself up as an authority.
If you don't want to be treated as an encyclopedia then, fine, don't call yourself one. Wikipedia's editors want it both ways: they want the pissing-rights of being editors and contributors to an "encyclopedia" but they don't want to have to produce the good when it comes to reliability. The bottom line is that there'd be a lot less people keen to be a part of a wiki-based version of "Believe it or Not!", but that is all WP is or ever can be with its current methodology.
TWW
Er... he didn't say that.
I think this is ignoring the number of people on all sides who were fooled by the fake WMD info. Dems and Reps both believed Colin Powel's presentation to the UN, including such gems as the UK-made hydrogen trucks - with US DoD export approval - being presented as mobile WMD factories.
I have no problem with people who were fooled, later saying that they are against the war. In fact, I have a lot less of a problem with them than with people who are still saying it was a good idea after all the subsequent events and revelations, whatever party they are from.
TWW
It was more important to establish the point that the US judicial system is not a "world court" able to haul anyone in at a whim to spend a small fortune defending themselves against spurious actions which should never have reached a trial. The fact that the judge was a total moron who was unable to see through a pathetic tissue of lies shows how dangerous it would have been to have allowed any person from Spamhaus to become a literal captive hostage in the US while this was being sorted out.
TWW
Rare?! All compilers generate inefficient code almost all the time. However, with faster processors today "inefficient" is usually fast enough. A human who understands the problem can always at least match any compiler, and almost always beat it, but the development time is normally a bigger issue than the execution time.
TWW
?!
The text
contains the word "the" only twice: "the private use of..." and "the NFL's consent..." neither of which have anything to do with the clause specifying what you can't do. What are you talking about?TWW
Translation: MAPS put a persistent spammer's machines in the RBL. AboveNet and Teleglobe black-hole things in the RBL at the router level. Spammer doesn't like this.
Okay, I give in. I've read the article twice and I can't see what part you are referring to. Please explain.
TWW
Yes they are; there's a very important use of the word "or" in there that you've missed.