How on earth is a standard supposed to spread when everyone and their mother distrusts the people producing it? No one trusts them to contribute to the field without some kind of nasty lock-in, and their is a reason for that distrust.
JavaScript was meant to manipulate documents, and is used to make those documents into applications.
Lets just throw out HTML altogether and come up with a new language to make the client side section of web apps with. HTML was never envisioned to do this.
In my state there are several of what they call 'culpable mental states' These are 'with intent to' 'recklessly' 'knowingly' and 'with criminal negligence.' Different crimes require different levels. the difference between 2nd degree murder and manslaughter is that one requires intent, while the other only requires recklessness or criminal negligence. Some crimes punish you for doing X, while some charge you only for knowingly doing X.
Of course, its impossible to be absolutely sure what someone was intending to do, but that is why we have juries to make reasonable inferences.
I have read every single comment on this board, and no one seems to be asking about if they factored in benefits or not.
I will take this to assume they have not, and merit my above average cleverness for the discovery. I hereby declare, by right of my ideology, that this article is fraudulent.
Culpable mental states play a large role in this kind of thing. This book is written with the obvious intent to educate, not to aid in crime. Intent matters in law.
There is such an incredible degree of irony in all this. Libraries were created with the idea that information should be free, but due to the physical cost of the book, we could only check books out for a small time. Now ebooks can be created for free, and we are doing the best we can to make sure they don't get too free. Its time to deal with the practically unbounded copy-write law, and make our libraries just websites that let you download public domain books.
Yes, it will get panned, not just because people disagree, but because its the most 'from the book' republican dribble I have ever heard. (no, I don't care that you think you aren't republican) I couldn't have asked for a better attack rant from hanity himself. Nothing in this is orignal, clever, or even simple. It only seems simple because you haven't really even thought it through.
Its nice that the rich fund startups, but why on earth would I make a start up in this economy? Most people are doing their best to keep up with that smart phone market they unwisely expanded into, and aren't really looking for new luxuries.
Jobs are not created by the rich. The rich are 'capital providers' and create jobs when paired with 'customers' to sell to. The capital is ready to go, but we are at a bottleneck with customers. Costumers need help right now, and the majority of customers do not make 250k a year. If we continue to balance the deficit by reducing programs, without splitting the cost to the wealthy, it will further hurt demand, and everyone suffers, rich and poor alike.
Yeah, but from the perspective of an individual rich person, its the 'economy' that will take care of that, while you play it smart. If your tax rate goes up, it wasn't your fault, you were just a drop in the bucket anyway.
Of course they believe the one highlighting nuclear power over one highlighting regulation.
Attaching a study to a political stance will ALWAYS lower peoples trust of the findings, no matter which way the stance points. The conclusion may be true, but there are plenty of explanations for the distrust.
This is Slashdot, yes we know what algorithms are, and we don't fear them by their nature.
That being said, a good deal in our life is more automated than it was before, and while most of it isn't a big deal, as the case of Netflix guessing what movie you would like to watch tonight, or the perfect way to clean your living room, many of them are a big deal. The stock market is the most obvious example, where algorithms based on pattern matching are driving growing portions of the economy. The more algorithms in play, the more the underlying assumptions those algorithms are based on deteriorate, and without any common sense or supervision, that puts our society in a dangerous position.
No, this is accounting double speak. Social Security is not paid for. The money in the trust fund has already been spent, soon the program will be paying out more than it takes in, and at that time we will need to raise taxes or take out additional debt to make up the difference.
So what? That is all money we would have had to barrow public debt or raise taxes for anyway. That debt is still included in our goss debt 14 trillion dollar figure. It may move into the public debt figure, but if it hadn't been for SS it would have already been there anyway.
The credit rating agencies made it clear with Greece that if you don't pay your bills, not just the interest on existing credit lines, but also for services rendered, it constitutes a partial default.
The most responsible thing we could have done is gone with the 4 trillion dollar plan where we raised taxes a bit, cut a lot, and reduced entitlements. Instead, the Tea Party made sure taxes were off the table, and what we ended up with was unsatisfactory to anyone. To say Obama somehow failed on some abstract level of leadership while ignoring that the Tea Party refused to budge and stalled a critical process is disingenuous.
And yes, reducing in the face of larger automatic growth is still a cut.
Roughly comparable to me saying "I can't afford my house note (this is theoretical, since I paid my house off ten years ago). I was planning on buying a vacation home in the Hamptons. Instead, I will buy a vacation home in Canada's cottage country. I have therefore saved money."
The only reason this sounds bad is because you are making the subjects of your analogy as silly as possible. If the analogy were instead: 'I can't afford my mortgage. I know the cost of my kid's health care is going up. I will change plans to offset the cost of the increase. I have therefore saved money' it wouldn't have any punch at all. The crux of the argument is really that you don't like how the money is being spent, not about how savings are counted. Everyone likes to imagine there is a nice easy answer where money is being wasted on trillion dollar toilet seats, but the reality is that the core of our spending goes to programs people are really quite fond of, and throwing them out during a recession will cost us more than it saves.
This is an emotional argument, has nothing to do with the math
Wikipedia can show you [wikipedia.org] that since Obama has entered office the rate at which the debt is growing has increased substantially.
And if I were an idiot, I would see that correlation and believe it is causation. Thankfully, I have a memory long enough to let me remember why the deficit is so high. It has to do with the housing market crash and the subsequent recession, ironically caused by rating agencies like S&P rating mortgage bundles incorrectly. The spike began before Obama was even in office, and deficits were projected to reach into the trillions before Obama's inauguration. There is no reason to believe that Obama is the cause of our deficits, other than political disposition.
That is not at all what the TP wanted to do. They wanted to cut spending so that we were still meeting debt obligations but cutting back on everything else.
Is that so? I recall one TP candidate after another 'standing their ground' and demanding the debt ceiling not be raised, despite the fact that not paying your obligations is considered a partial default by credit ratings.
I am done. This just sealed my decision to quit. Its been clear that they were going down a bad road when blizzard decided their best pieces of art would be purchase only, (disco lion) and its come time to look for greener pastures. I want to spend my time playing a game designed to be fun rather than a game designed to maximize micro-transactions.
In the Netflix press release they noted they were splitting the plans because there was MORE demand for the DVD than they anticipated. At first they thought they would have the give the DVD part away, but now think otherwise.
That would be like if Mac decided to remove the floppy drive so they could sell external floppy drives because everyone loved them so much.
That explains why they might offer a DVD only plan, but does not explain why they would take away the steaming/dvd bundle.
No.. Netflix said it themselves in the press release, they think they can charge more for DVDs, so they will.
As advocates of Freedom and fairness, let's break the law and act in secret to take down the tea industry, which in turn hurts distributors who only transport tea. Let's also inconvenience random tea drinkers. Let's create all kinds of random collateral damage to make a point about supporting fairness by supporting the Boston Tea Party.*
No one here would be OK with the taking of human life, true terrorism, but honestly, you almost have to cause collateral damage to be taken seriously.
*No association with the modern conservative tea party.
Roleplay isn't something you can really put in or take out of the rules.
Normally I would agree with this, yet I feel like lately DND has been trying to put far too much of their own setting into the rules. When 4th ed. was first coming out I read a booklet describing the design process. They apparently went though serval Gnome iterations, at first having them be advisers to elves, then tech-heads, but they decided that was too much like WoW and Dragon Lance, and decided to just scrap the race all together.
All I could think was "Really?" Because they couldn't figure out how gnomes were supposed to be in their setting, we don't have gnomes anymore, for those of us who might have actually liked have the race and style it ourselves. When I first started playing 3rd I saw it as a framework for which you could design your own setting, but now Wizards has too much interest in telling us what the world is, instead of making core rules and setting separate.
Neverwinter! Like as in Neverwinter nights, the game I learned game modding on when I was young! Oh the Excitment! Oh the Joy! oh the... 4th edition. God Damn it. There goes my gnome.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Nonsense. Thats just a more flexible document. I am talking about going to web based app/applet delivery.
I think you answered your own question.
How on earth is a standard supposed to spread when everyone and their mother distrusts the people producing it? No one trusts them to contribute to the field without some kind of nasty lock-in, and their is a reason for that distrust.
Yes, just stop innovating and making everything so complicated. Just do it the old way, I don't care what people want.
JavaScript was meant to manipulate documents, and is used to make those documents into applications.
Lets just throw out HTML altogether and come up with a new language to make the client side section of web apps with. HTML was never envisioned to do this.
Sure standards can die, but it will take disuse for a longer period than the internet has been introduced.
In my state there are several of what they call 'culpable mental states' These are 'with intent to' 'recklessly' 'knowingly' and 'with criminal negligence.' Different crimes require different levels. the difference between 2nd degree murder and manslaughter is that one requires intent, while the other only requires recklessness or criminal negligence. Some crimes punish you for doing X, while some charge you only for knowingly doing X.
Of course, its impossible to be absolutely sure what someone was intending to do, but that is why we have juries to make reasonable inferences.
Why hasn't anyone asked about benefits yet?
I have read every single comment on this board, and no one seems to be asking about if they factored in benefits or not.
I will take this to assume they have not, and merit my above average cleverness for the discovery. I hereby declare, by right of my ideology, that this article is fraudulent.
Culpable mental states play a large role in this kind of thing. This book is written with the obvious intent to educate, not to aid in crime. Intent matters in law.
There is such an incredible degree of irony in all this. Libraries were created with the idea that information should be free, but due to the physical cost of the book, we could only check books out for a small time. Now ebooks can be created for free, and we are doing the best we can to make sure they don't get too free. Its time to deal with the practically unbounded copy-write law, and make our libraries just websites that let you download public domain books.
Yes, just instead of holding your money in the forms of legitimate investments, they are holding your money in their wallets.
Yes, it will get panned, not just because people disagree, but because its the most 'from the book' republican dribble I have ever heard. (no, I don't care that you think you aren't republican) I couldn't have asked for a better attack rant from hanity himself. Nothing in this is orignal, clever, or even simple. It only seems simple because you haven't really even thought it through.
Its nice that the rich fund startups, but why on earth would I make a start up in this economy? Most people are doing their best to keep up with that smart phone market they unwisely expanded into, and aren't really looking for new luxuries.
Jobs are not created by the rich. The rich are 'capital providers' and create jobs when paired with 'customers' to sell to. The capital is ready to go, but we are at a bottleneck with customers. Costumers need help right now, and the majority of customers do not make 250k a year. If we continue to balance the deficit by reducing programs, without splitting the cost to the wealthy, it will further hurt demand, and everyone suffers, rich and poor alike.
Yeah, but from the perspective of an individual rich person, its the 'economy' that will take care of that, while you play it smart. If your tax rate goes up, it wasn't your fault, you were just a drop in the bucket anyway.
Of course they believe the one highlighting nuclear power over one highlighting regulation.
Attaching a study to a political stance will ALWAYS lower peoples trust of the findings, no matter which way the stance points. The conclusion may be true, but there are plenty of explanations for the distrust.
This is Slashdot, yes we know what algorithms are, and we don't fear them by their nature.
That being said, a good deal in our life is more automated than it was before, and while most of it isn't a big deal, as the case of Netflix guessing what movie you would like to watch tonight, or the perfect way to clean your living room, many of them are a big deal. The stock market is the most obvious example, where algorithms based on pattern matching are driving growing portions of the economy. The more algorithms in play, the more the underlying assumptions those algorithms are based on deteriorate, and without any common sense or supervision, that puts our society in a dangerous position.
No, this is accounting double speak. Social Security is not paid for. The money in the trust fund has already been spent, soon the program will be paying out more than it takes in, and at that time we will need to raise taxes or take out additional debt to make up the difference.
So what? That is all money we would have had to barrow public debt or raise taxes for anyway. That debt is still included in our goss debt 14 trillion dollar figure. It may move into the public debt figure, but if it hadn't been for SS it would have already been there anyway.
The credit rating agencies made it clear with Greece that if you don't pay your bills, not just the interest on existing credit lines, but also for services rendered, it constitutes a partial default.
The most responsible thing we could have done is gone with the 4 trillion dollar plan where we raised taxes a bit, cut a lot, and reduced entitlements. Instead, the Tea Party made sure taxes were off the table, and what we ended up with was unsatisfactory to anyone. To say Obama somehow failed on some abstract level of leadership while ignoring that the Tea Party refused to budge and stalled a critical process is disingenuous.
And yes, reducing in the face of larger automatic growth is still a cut.
Roughly comparable to me saying "I can't afford my house note (this is theoretical, since I paid my house off ten years ago). I was planning on buying a vacation home in the Hamptons. Instead, I will buy a vacation home in Canada's cottage country. I have therefore saved money."
The only reason this sounds bad is because you are making the subjects of your analogy as silly as possible. If the analogy were instead: 'I can't afford my mortgage. I know the cost of my kid's health care is going up. I will change plans to offset the cost of the increase. I have therefore saved money' it wouldn't have any punch at all. The crux of the argument is really that you don't like how the money is being spent, not about how savings are counted. Everyone likes to imagine there is a nice easy answer where money is being wasted on trillion dollar toilet seats, but the reality is that the core of our spending goes to programs people are really quite fond of, and throwing them out during a recession will cost us more than it saves.
This is an emotional argument, has nothing to do with the math
Wikipedia can show you [wikipedia.org] that since Obama has entered office the rate at which the debt is growing has increased substantially.
And if I were an idiot, I would see that correlation and believe it is causation. Thankfully, I have a memory long enough to let me remember why the deficit is so high. It has to do with the housing market crash and the subsequent recession, ironically caused by rating agencies like S&P rating mortgage bundles incorrectly. The spike began before Obama was even in office, and deficits were projected to reach into the trillions before Obama's inauguration. There is no reason to believe that Obama is the cause of our deficits, other than political disposition.
That is not at all what the TP wanted to do. They wanted to cut spending so that we were still meeting debt obligations but cutting back on everything else.
Is that so? I recall one TP candidate after another 'standing their ground' and demanding the debt ceiling not be raised, despite the fact that not paying your obligations is considered a partial default by credit ratings.
I am done. This just sealed my decision to quit. Its been clear that they were going down a bad road when blizzard decided their best pieces of art would be purchase only, (disco lion) and its come time to look for greener pastures. I want to spend my time playing a game designed to be fun rather than a game designed to maximize micro-transactions.
In the Netflix press release they noted they were splitting the plans because there was MORE demand for the DVD than they anticipated. At first they thought they would have the give the DVD part away, but now think otherwise.
That would be like if Mac decided to remove the floppy drive so they could sell external floppy drives because everyone loved them so much.
That explains why they might offer a DVD only plan, but does not explain why they would take away the steaming/dvd bundle. No.. Netflix said it themselves in the press release, they think they can charge more for DVDs, so they will.
As advocates of Freedom and fairness, let's break the law and act in secret to take down the tea industry, which in turn hurts distributors who only transport tea. Let's also inconvenience random tea drinkers. Let's create all kinds of random collateral damage to make a point about supporting fairness by supporting the Boston Tea Party.*
No one here would be OK with the taking of human life, true terrorism, but honestly, you almost have to cause collateral damage to be taken seriously.
*No association with the modern conservative tea party.
Roleplay isn't something you can really put in or take out of the rules.
Normally I would agree with this, yet I feel like lately DND has been trying to put far too much of their own setting into the rules. When 4th ed. was first coming out I read a booklet describing the design process. They apparently went though serval Gnome iterations, at first having them be advisers to elves, then tech-heads, but they decided that was too much like WoW and Dragon Lance, and decided to just scrap the race all together.
All I could think was "Really?" Because they couldn't figure out how gnomes were supposed to be in their setting, we don't have gnomes anymore, for those of us who might have actually liked have the race and style it ourselves. When I first started playing 3rd I saw it as a framework for which you could design your own setting, but now Wizards has too much interest in telling us what the world is, instead of making core rules and setting separate.
Neverwinter! Like as in Neverwinter nights, the game I learned game modding on when I was young! Oh the Excitment! Oh the Joy! oh the... 4th edition. God Damn it. There goes my gnome.