Sorry, I don't buy it. If the front end of your car is in the cross walk, odds are very good the tail end is still behind the stop line, and will trigger the loops just as well as the front end of the car would. *Requiring* that people stop *past* the legal stop line in order to trigger the lights is lunacy, plain and simple.
I'm sorry, I must have missed your point amongst the sarcasm.
I understand. All the magical thinking must make it difficult to understand things like "facts" and "theories". Here, let me explain for you the nuances of my post as simply as I can:
1) Attacking magical thinking (intelligent design, etc) as being unscientific is not bigoted. It's simply the truth. Live with it.
2) Christians, Flat-Earthers, the poor Flying Spaghetti Monster adherents, none of them are downtrodden minorities being attacked by an evil establishment. Ditch the victim complex and move on.
Additional points that I didn't make, but seem worth mentioning now, include:
3) Hypothesis that can never be disproven are unscientific, are not theories, and are of precisely zero (0) value. If the hypothesis can't be tested in the real world, then it can't affect the real world, and so it is useless.
4) Russell's Teapot. It's not my job to disprove your outlandish claims. It's your job to provide evidence to support them.
5) As a corollary to #4, given no one has demonstrated evidence of "intelligent motivation behind evolution", it would be irrational to believe otherwise. Similarly, I don't believe aliens have abducted humans, that homeopathic therapy is anything but a fancy placebo, or that thimerosol causes autism.
Is there anything else I can clear up for you, or does that answer your question?
Look, if you want to ridicule the "creationists" and "intelligent design" proponents, just have the balls to come out and say it; don't pussyfoot around, trying to be clever. Or, better yet, just keep your bigotry to yourself.
I know! It's the same thing with those poor, downtrodden flat earthers. Damn scientists and their bigoted "facts" and "scientific method" things. How dare they come out and criticise magical thinking posing as science simply because magic has no, uhh... you know, that stuff... err... evidence! Yeah, that stuff.
Few, if any, of these projectcs are remotely competitive with oil/nat gas under $75 and in many cases still higher - and even with substantial subsidies and tax breaks.
And you know *why*? It's because oil/gas are, themselves, subsidized, you just don't seem to realize it. It's called negative externalities. I mean, could you imagine how expensive oil/gas would be if the companies were actually forced to run clean operations? But they don't. Instead, they destroy the environment around their operations (see the northern Alberta tarsand tailings ponds for some spectacular examples), and if they're asked to clean up the mess, they just whine that it's too expensive.
The point is, this amounts to nothing more than a shadow subsidy. As such, big surprise that greener technologies can't prevail. Which is why government should be taxing the hell out of petroleum, in order to compensate for the negative externalities the industry takes advantage of.
I wasn't trolling specifically about Chrome, I was asking (in the subject) why ppl still use FF.
So you where just trolling in general?
Look, it was an article about a friggin' FF beta. And you come on and say "Hey, FF is shit, why do you like it?!?" How is that not a troll? I mean, let's face it, in all probability, you weren't actually looking for an honest, thoughtful answer to that question (and yes, believe it or not, there is an honest answer... I just don't think you're interested in it).
If, on the off chance, you *were* looking for an honest answer, let me know, and I can explain to you why I use FF as my primary browser.
I felt like pushing some buttons.
Ah, see? Like I said, a troll. But, hey, at least you admitted it eventually.
No for serious ebook reading PDF is NOT an inferior format. It's a very flexible one. As PDF files can retain layout, and text can be made to size for whatever you like, you can create a great PDF file to fit the 7"
Of course you could *create* a PDF that would render nicely on one specific device. But that's not terribly helpful when you're trying to read scanned documents... you know, the types of documents the GP wants to read?
And ignoring that, the whole point of ebooks is to flexibly display on multiple different devices with different screen sizes and resolutions (this is particularly important with Kindle's whispersync capability, which allows one to read the same book on both your phone and your Kindle... devices with completely different displays). This requires dynamic reflow and dynamic font size adjustment, and you can do neither of these things with PDF today (Adobe is going to add reflow support to PDF, but it requires the PDF be specifically authored with reflow capability).
Of course, there's one other type of content out there that needs to be rendered on multiple different types of devices while still supporting rich content, including images and video: HTML. Similarly, the correct solution for ebooks is marked up text with embedded content, probably something XML-based. This will allow the reader to adapt the content for it's capabilities, just like a web browser does today, rather that being tied down to a fixed layout ala PDF.
(Shrug) It's the standard in electronic documents in general.
No, it's not, and your saying so doesn't make it true. It's just *one* format, and for only a subset of different types of electronic documents out there: fixed layout documents that must be rendered the same regardless of device. Heck, it isn't even the only standard... postscript (PDF's progenitor) has been around much longer and is implemented in every mid- to high-end printer in existence.
At the risk of repeating myself, since this point didn't seem to sink in for you, other standards for electronic documents include HTML for hypertext documents (of which there are probably ten documents for every one PDF out there), CSV for tabular data, and so forth. No one would use one of those formats for distributing a fixed layout document, any more than they'd distribute a spreadsheet as a PDF (well, maybe you would, I don't know...). Similarly, PDF makes absolutely no sense as an ebook format, and thus it makes no sense for an ebook reader... you know, a device designed to read *ebooks*... to waste cycles or space supporting it when those resources could be used for more useful features.
In short: you don't want an ebook reader. You want a fixed-layout document viewer. Kindle is the former, not the latter.
It's the standard in electronic documents in general.
So? By your estimation all web browsers should natively render PDF, too, because, hey, it's a standard for electronic documents! But, of course, it's not a standard for all things. It's only a standard for fixed layout, fixed content documents. For marked up text, HTML is the standard. For simple tabular data, CSV is the standard. For ebooks, there happens to be a couple de facto standard formats out there (mobi and palmdoc being most common), neither of which is PDF, which is ill-suited to that space. So there's absolutely no reason why one would expect a device like Kindle to natively render them, any more than I would expect a web browser to natively render PDF.
The rest of your post is really a non-sequitor. Last I checked, I never suggested using MOBI or PRC as an archival format, nor does it matter either way as that's entirely beside the point. The simple fact is that:
a) Kindle is an ebook reader. b) PDF is a crappy format for storing ebooks in. c) Therefore, there's no reason you or anyone else should expect Kindle to natively render PDFs.
The fact you don't understand 'c' suggests to me that you've never actually read a real ebook, and are instead complaining that Kindle doesn't meet your personal expectations and requirements. Fortunately, that's no one's fault but your own, as you clearly can't seem to accept that Kindle is not designed with your needs in mind.
Yeah, I don't disagree, but then.MP3 isn't the "best" audio format, either. It's just the standard
You can't possibly be suggesting that PDF is "the standard" in ebooks. Because that's *far* from the truth. MOBI, PalmDOC, heck TXT, have far more penetration as far as ebook formats go (I'm also a big fan of Plucker). Yes, PDF is the "standard" for platform agnostic transmission of documents... but the standard for ebooks? No way, no how.
Someone with a metric assload of scanned documents, with formatting that needs to be preserved. That would be me.
Then Kindle isn't for you.
For actual, serious e-book reading, PDF is an inferior format. Period. What you're doing sounds like it involves reading scanned technical manuals or other documentation. For that purpose, you probably want something with higher resolution, and even better, colour. Either way, Kindle isn't the best choice. I'd suggest something along the lines of a tablet PC.
From what I can tell, the Kindle 1 doesn't natively read PDFs. That said, you can convert them yourself to.mobi documents (or HTML or TXT or what have you). This is, I believe, simply a technological limitation... ie, rendering PDFs is hard and the Kindle 1 can't do it. I believe the believe the Kindle 2 can (partially) render PDFs directly.
'course, who would want to direct render a PDF on a device like the Kindle in the first place? PDF is a page description language, and doesn't allow for things like reflow, font size adjustment, and so forth. Which is why things like.mobi files exist... they're *far* superior to PDF for ebooks. Luckily, Kindle supports MOBI, PRC, and straight TXT. And Kindle 2 will do HTML and DOC, as well.
HOWEVER, unix application writers are NOT expected to do anything more, in particular, they are not expected to use fsync() on each file.
Huh? Unix application writers who develop against the POSIX spec are *specifically* expected to call fsync() if they want to guarantee that the contents of their files are written out to disk.
FURTHERMORE, fsync have performance issues, in particular, on ext3, fsync() will flush ALL the data for the specified file system, resulting in extraordinary bad performance.
Sure. So I would strongly suggest only doing that for cases where it's really important to ensure the contents of the file are actually written out to disk. For example, the Firefox disk cache need not call fsync(). After all, who cares if a little data is lost, there? But OpenOffice, when saving a file, probably should if they want to provide a guarantee that a document written out to disk really is written out.
Every coder of every unix application everywhere should start caring about the fact that ext4 is fragile ?
No, unix application writers should stop writing shitty applications that don't handle failure cases properly. In short: is it Ext4's fault that stupid developers didn't code to spec? No, of course not. Ext4 just made it blatantly obvious that they were making invalid assumptions about the behaviour of the POSIX I/O functions. Their code could just as easily fail on a network filesystem where the ethernet cable popped out of the jack before the file contents could be written out.
Yep, I fully expect to be modded down for stating my sure to be very unpopular opinion here.
I believe you mean your very unpopular, entirely off-topic opinion here. Yes, it's true! Trolling about Chrome on a story about Firefox's latest beta is, in fact, off-topic.
What if the OS isn't doing a good job of it or if the application could simply do it better?
And what if the OS isn't doing a good job managing memory? Should the application include it's own virtual memory layer? And what if the OS doesn't have a good sound system? Should the application include it's own sound drivers?
At some point, you gotta leave things to the OS. That's what it's there for, ffs. Don't like the OS's performance in some area? Complain to your vendor, or switch to a better OS. But putting the logic in the application itself is the wrong solution, IMHO.
Developers without good understanding of Relational Databases and SQL often produce problems that cannot be solved by indexes, or throwing transistors at them.
It is so nice to see a "custom" made map implemented in the database using temporary tables instead of using the language's built-in map functionality:-) sorting arrays using the database gets extra points (no kidding, I have seen this!),
Dude, that isn't a lack of understanding regarding SQL. That's complete, utter incompetence.
Experian is a regulated credit monitoring authority. They have done nothing to build up their brand as a trusted source (they are constantly cited for bad service, even)
Oh, no no, they're *far* more than that. They take their credit ratings data, along with data from a whole host of other sources (such as club cards, etc), and then for every individual they have information on, they categorize them in terms of age, income, gender, and a whole raft of other metrics. They then sell this information to advertisers for a pretty penny who use that data for direct mail campaigns and various other advertising. Trust me, between them and Acxiom, an advertiser can find out all kinds of things about you, personally. Heck, Experian tells you so right on their website:
Ad IQ delivers an analytical approach to help take the guesswork out of media planning by ranking and indexing your consumer definitions across all geographies, including DMA, ZIP Code, cable zones, and trade areas. From what broadcast and cable TV network programs they watch to which magazine and newspapers they read to their online preferences, we bring you insight into your best customers and prospects. Ad IQ leverages Experian's vast data assets, including extensive media consumption and brand preference information, to increase the relevancy of your advertising helping you define, identify and target your best consumer audience at the household level.
Hell, Experian thinks their data is so good they believe they can help fight terrorism.
And they've been doing this for decades.
So, I maintain, if you're so worried about Google, you're far *far* too late. The horse is already out of that barn.
"Brainwashing" was your term. I never claimed that degree. I claimed bias. Bias is a far cry from brainwashing, but it can most definitely get you to buy products you were on the fence over buying.
And *that* is a far cry from buy things you'd "never otherwise have had interest in". So, can I assume you're backpedaling on that statement, now?
Because you cannot imagine a better world, no better world can exist? Because humans are flawed, no society can exist that can allow them to coexist in near-harmony?
No, it's because, as perfect as humanity could become, there's still gonna be some other race (call them the Dominion, or the Romulans, or the Borg, etc) that might decide to come along and try to take away the utopia they've worked so hard to build. And the minute that happens, you have a choice: defend yourself, or lose everything you've built. And I think it's patently obviously that self-defense may, in fact, require one to make hard choices from time to time.
Though, as an aside (as I think this is tangential to the topic at hand), I do happen to believe that "Because humans are flawed, no society can exist that can allow them to coexist in near-harmony". The simple fact is that humans *are* flawed. And there will always be people who will attempt to take advantage of others or gain power over them. To deny that is the height of naivete. And that fact makes it impossible for any human society to rise to the level of a true utopia.
That's not to say ST can't explore the *idea* of a true utopia. But no such society lives in isolation, and it will eventually come up against forces that challenge those utopian ideals.
I completely reject the notion that humanity cannot create new social structures, just as we build new technological structures, that are better than the ones we have today.
Of course we can. But unless you somehow completely eliminate the idea of a power relationship in those structures (which is impossible), then you will always have avenues for corruption that can be leveraged by the unscrupulous to take advantage of others. And voila, your utopia falters.
As for the rest, your comments are just based on your own expectations are what ST *should* be. And that's your choice, one that I won't be able to shake you from. I just believe your notions are unnecessarily narrow, and that if the writers of, say, TNG, took your stance, the show would have been lesser for it (see the great episode "The Drumhead" for an example of TNG at it's finest... TNG depicting a world that isn't the idealized utopia you believe ST should be based on).
Star Trek for me was supposed to be an idealized future, and we are the good guys. It had to tread carefully to avoid becoming overly preachy (and failed on occasion), but I'm not sure I like a darker or more warlike federation.
Ah, but that's not what DS9 ever portrayed. What they portrayed was an idealized future where the good guys were forced into war because, guess what, sometimes you have to fight to survive. And the minute your goal is survival, well surprise surprise, it's suddenly a lot harder to be idealistic.
I find this fascinating, though. To me, the entire reason Trek was flawed was because it's idealistic future was so wildly unbelievable. I'm sorry, but even in a world of limitless energy, food, and freedom, with perfect, idealized human beings, there's still going to be individuals/groups/races out there try to eat the good guys' lunch... you know, like the Dominion. And the minute you admit that, you have to be open to the idea of conflict with those people. And who would believe in a real, war-like conflict that didn't involve compromising one's ideals on occasion? At minimum, odds are you're going to have to kill on occasion, and last I checked, that's not a terribly nice, idealistic thing to do.
Then again, at least in my mind, this is the difference between sci-fi, as entertainment, and sci-fi as an actual intellectual genre. IMHO, Trek, in its idealized form, can only succeed in the former. To truly examine the human condition, a prerequisite to achieving the latter, you actually have to admit that humans are not, and will never be, perfect, idealized creatures living in a perfect, idealized world.
Are you serious? DS9 was The Care Bears Fussy Day compared to the ugliness of a real war
Heh, alright, fine, *some* of the attendant ugliness. Obviously there's no way they could do it "properly", Saving-Private-Ryan-style, but they at least *tried* (hell, one of the main characters got his leg blown off, for god sake!).
I disagree. Corporations have been collecting data, but at a snail's pace, and largely on far less sophisticated equipment.
Wow, you really have no idea. Look, I've seen the Experian categories. The level of granularity in their data is staggering. And a little disturbing. Trust me, they know more about you than you ever realized.
Even today, few corporations have the penetration and computing power (and engineering prowess) to collect that volume of data and pull off massive statistical crunching like Google.
ROFL! Guys like Experian have been doing this for *decades*. Google are mere babes in the area of data crunching when it comes to those guys.
Go do a little research. You might find yourself surprised.
I understand that we're losing our privacy, but I want to control how that happens and limit its damage, specifically as it pertains to how I am targeted through advertising. Your friends must be jerks if you think like that.
Not at all. They just don't have the same values you or I do. Me, I'm a little jealous about my privacy (although clearly not as... err... protective as you). But many people I know will become "friends" with complete strangers on Facebook. They'll post pictures and details about their lives that I'd never even consider. Unfortunately, that sometimes means divulging information about *me*... and once it's out there, it's too late to take it back.
If you like, I can obtain a dozen peer-reviewed papers that present compelling evidence to that fact. Just consider: why do companies advertise? why do those advertisements often do nothing but say the company name? The answer is that they are building a brand, which equates to trust.
And that does *not* equate to "buying things you would never otherwise have had interest in". *That* is brainwashing, and is a far, far cry from brand building. Now, if you can find a peer reviewed journal that demonstrates that advertising can induce someone to buy something they "never otherwise have had interest in", I'll be very impressed. I'm sure the advertisers would be, as well.
Yes, if by "truly great" you mean bailed out with a plot device (wormhole aliens) and don't stop to question why Captain Sisko seemed to be single-handily running the Federation's war-effort, ranging from commanding a fleet of some 600 ships on his own to commanding a ground battle that could have been ended in two minutes if any of the Trek powers had the equivalent of machine guns or artillery. Are there really no infantry weapons bigger than rifles in the 24th century?
Meh, I never said the show was flawless. But it was, in those seasons, as good as the best TNG, IMHO, and far better than anything Voyager or Enterprise have ever offered.
I agree, the wormhole aliens solution was a bit contrived (although, it makes sense in the context of the show... the aliens are supposedly a) all-powerful, and b) the custodians of Bajor... going to them for help isn't unreasonable). Then again, was Data's solution to the Borg problem in "Best of Both Worlds" any less contrived? And as for Sisko's role, well... you could just as easily level the same criticism against Picard in TNG leading the charge in any number of engagements.
Garek had the best character in the series (IMHO) and Eddington's critique of the Federation particularly damning:
I couldn't agree more. I also think the episode in which there was an attempted military coup on Earth was brilliantly executed.
It's funny, though. You say that "portraying a federation that was, for a change, flawed and multifaceted" "was actually one of the redeeming things about it." To me, that's what makes the series brilliant.
I mean, the goal of science fiction shouldn't be to present funny aliens, or to give nerds neat technology to drool over. It should be to use the setting as an environment in which one can then explore the human condition in a way that would otherwise be impossible. DS9 attempted to do that, exploring the decisions and compromises one must make during a time of war, and it did so better than, I think, any other other Trek, save for TNG.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I don't buy it. If the front end of your car is in the cross walk, odds are very good the tail end is still behind the stop line, and will trigger the loops just as well as the front end of the car would. *Requiring* that people stop *past* the legal stop line in order to trigger the lights is lunacy, plain and simple.
I'm sorry, I must have missed your point amongst the sarcasm.
I understand. All the magical thinking must make it difficult to understand things like "facts" and "theories". Here, let me explain for you the nuances of my post as simply as I can:
1) Attacking magical thinking (intelligent design, etc) as being unscientific is not bigoted. It's simply the truth. Live with it.
2) Christians, Flat-Earthers, the poor Flying Spaghetti Monster adherents, none of them are downtrodden minorities being attacked by an evil establishment. Ditch the victim complex and move on.
Additional points that I didn't make, but seem worth mentioning now, include:
3) Hypothesis that can never be disproven are unscientific, are not theories, and are of precisely zero (0) value. If the hypothesis can't be tested in the real world, then it can't affect the real world, and so it is useless.
4) Russell's Teapot. It's not my job to disprove your outlandish claims. It's your job to provide evidence to support them.
5) As a corollary to #4, given no one has demonstrated evidence of "intelligent motivation behind evolution", it would be irrational to believe otherwise. Similarly, I don't believe aliens have abducted humans, that homeopathic therapy is anything but a fancy placebo, or that thimerosol causes autism.
Is there anything else I can clear up for you, or does that answer your question?
ROFL, right, which must explain all the high speed motorcycle accidents that happen every year once the weather gets good...
Look, if you want to ridicule the "creationists" and "intelligent design" proponents, just have the balls to come out and say it; don't pussyfoot around, trying to be clever. Or, better yet, just keep your bigotry to yourself.
I know! It's the same thing with those poor, downtrodden flat earthers. Damn scientists and their bigoted "facts" and "scientific method" things. How dare they come out and criticise magical thinking posing as science simply because magic has no, uhh... you know, that stuff... err... evidence! Yeah, that stuff.
Citation, please. I can't imagine traffic engineers would be that amazingly stupid.
Few, if any, of these projectcs are remotely competitive with oil/nat gas under $75 and in many cases still higher - and even with substantial subsidies and tax breaks.
And you know *why*? It's because oil/gas are, themselves, subsidized, you just don't seem to realize it. It's called negative externalities. I mean, could you imagine how expensive oil/gas would be if the companies were actually forced to run clean operations? But they don't. Instead, they destroy the environment around their operations (see the northern Alberta tarsand tailings ponds for some spectacular examples), and if they're asked to clean up the mess, they just whine that it's too expensive.
The point is, this amounts to nothing more than a shadow subsidy. As such, big surprise that greener technologies can't prevail. Which is why government should be taxing the hell out of petroleum, in order to compensate for the negative externalities the industry takes advantage of.
I wasn't trolling specifically about Chrome, I was asking (in the subject) why ppl still use FF.
So you where just trolling in general?
Look, it was an article about a friggin' FF beta. And you come on and say "Hey, FF is shit, why do you like it?!?" How is that not a troll? I mean, let's face it, in all probability, you weren't actually looking for an honest, thoughtful answer to that question (and yes, believe it or not, there is an honest answer... I just don't think you're interested in it).
If, on the off chance, you *were* looking for an honest answer, let me know, and I can explain to you why I use FF as my primary browser.
I felt like pushing some buttons.
Ah, see? Like I said, a troll. But, hey, at least you admitted it eventually.
No for serious ebook reading PDF is NOT an inferior format. It's a very flexible one. As PDF files can retain layout, and text can be made to size for whatever you like, you can create a great PDF file to fit the 7"
Of course you could *create* a PDF that would render nicely on one specific device. But that's not terribly helpful when you're trying to read scanned documents... you know, the types of documents the GP wants to read?
And ignoring that, the whole point of ebooks is to flexibly display on multiple different devices with different screen sizes and resolutions (this is particularly important with Kindle's whispersync capability, which allows one to read the same book on both your phone and your Kindle... devices with completely different displays). This requires dynamic reflow and dynamic font size adjustment, and you can do neither of these things with PDF today (Adobe is going to add reflow support to PDF, but it requires the PDF be specifically authored with reflow capability).
Of course, there's one other type of content out there that needs to be rendered on multiple different types of devices while still supporting rich content, including images and video: HTML. Similarly, the correct solution for ebooks is marked up text with embedded content, probably something XML-based. This will allow the reader to adapt the content for it's capabilities, just like a web browser does today, rather that being tied down to a fixed layout ala PDF.
(Shrug) It's the standard in electronic documents in general.
No, it's not, and your saying so doesn't make it true. It's just *one* format, and for only a subset of different types of electronic documents out there: fixed layout documents that must be rendered the same regardless of device. Heck, it isn't even the only standard... postscript (PDF's progenitor) has been around much longer and is implemented in every mid- to high-end printer in existence.
At the risk of repeating myself, since this point didn't seem to sink in for you, other standards for electronic documents include HTML for hypertext documents (of which there are probably ten documents for every one PDF out there), CSV for tabular data, and so forth. No one would use one of those formats for distributing a fixed layout document, any more than they'd distribute a spreadsheet as a PDF (well, maybe you would, I don't know...). Similarly, PDF makes absolutely no sense as an ebook format, and thus it makes no sense for an ebook reader... you know, a device designed to read *ebooks*... to waste cycles or space supporting it when those resources could be used for more useful features.
In short: you don't want an ebook reader. You want a fixed-layout document viewer. Kindle is the former, not the latter.
It's the standard in electronic documents in general.
So? By your estimation all web browsers should natively render PDF, too, because, hey, it's a standard for electronic documents! But, of course, it's not a standard for all things. It's only a standard for fixed layout, fixed content documents. For marked up text, HTML is the standard. For simple tabular data, CSV is the standard. For ebooks, there happens to be a couple de facto standard formats out there (mobi and palmdoc being most common), neither of which is PDF, which is ill-suited to that space. So there's absolutely no reason why one would expect a device like Kindle to natively render them, any more than I would expect a web browser to natively render PDF.
The rest of your post is really a non-sequitor. Last I checked, I never suggested using MOBI or PRC as an archival format, nor does it matter either way as that's entirely beside the point. The simple fact is that:
a) Kindle is an ebook reader.
b) PDF is a crappy format for storing ebooks in.
c) Therefore, there's no reason you or anyone else should expect Kindle to natively render PDFs.
The fact you don't understand 'c' suggests to me that you've never actually read a real ebook, and are instead complaining that Kindle doesn't meet your personal expectations and requirements. Fortunately, that's no one's fault but your own, as you clearly can't seem to accept that Kindle is not designed with your needs in mind.
Yeah, I don't disagree, but then .MP3 isn't the "best" audio format, either. It's just the standard
You can't possibly be suggesting that PDF is "the standard" in ebooks. Because that's *far* from the truth. MOBI, PalmDOC, heck TXT, have far more penetration as far as ebook formats go (I'm also a big fan of Plucker). Yes, PDF is the "standard" for platform agnostic transmission of documents... but the standard for ebooks? No way, no how.
Someone with a metric assload of scanned documents, with formatting that needs to be preserved. That would be me.
Then Kindle isn't for you.
For actual, serious e-book reading, PDF is an inferior format. Period. What you're doing sounds like it involves reading scanned technical manuals or other documentation. For that purpose, you probably want something with higher resolution, and even better, colour. Either way, Kindle isn't the best choice. I'd suggest something along the lines of a tablet PC.
From what I can tell, the Kindle 1 doesn't natively read PDFs. That said, you can convert them yourself to .mobi documents (or HTML or TXT or what have you). This is, I believe, simply a technological limitation... ie, rendering PDFs is hard and the Kindle 1 can't do it. I believe the believe the Kindle 2 can (partially) render PDFs directly.
'course, who would want to direct render a PDF on a device like the Kindle in the first place? PDF is a page description language, and doesn't allow for things like reflow, font size adjustment, and so forth. Which is why things like .mobi files exist... they're *far* superior to PDF for ebooks. Luckily, Kindle supports MOBI, PRC, and straight TXT. And Kindle 2 will do HTML and DOC, as well.
HOWEVER, unix application writers are NOT expected to do anything more, in particular, they are not expected to use fsync() on each file.
Huh? Unix application writers who develop against the POSIX spec are *specifically* expected to call fsync() if they want to guarantee that the contents of their files are written out to disk.
FURTHERMORE, fsync have performance issues, in particular, on ext3, fsync() will flush ALL the data for the specified file system, resulting in extraordinary bad performance.
Sure. So I would strongly suggest only doing that for cases where it's really important to ensure the contents of the file are actually written out to disk. For example, the Firefox disk cache need not call fsync(). After all, who cares if a little data is lost, there? But OpenOffice, when saving a file, probably should if they want to provide a guarantee that a document written out to disk really is written out.
Every coder of every unix application everywhere should start caring about the fact that ext4 is fragile ?
No, unix application writers should stop writing shitty applications that don't handle failure cases properly. In short: is it Ext4's fault that stupid developers didn't code to spec? No, of course not. Ext4 just made it blatantly obvious that they were making invalid assumptions about the behaviour of the POSIX I/O functions. Their code could just as easily fail on a network filesystem where the ethernet cable popped out of the jack before the file contents could be written out.
Yep, I fully expect to be modded down for stating my sure to be very unpopular opinion here.
I believe you mean your very unpopular, entirely off-topic opinion here. Yes, it's true! Trolling about Chrome on a story about Firefox's latest beta is, in fact, off-topic.
What if the OS isn't doing a good job of it or if the application could simply do it better?
And what if the OS isn't doing a good job managing memory? Should the application include it's own virtual memory layer? And what if the OS doesn't have a good sound system? Should the application include it's own sound drivers?
At some point, you gotta leave things to the OS. That's what it's there for, ffs. Don't like the OS's performance in some area? Complain to your vendor, or switch to a better OS. But putting the logic in the application itself is the wrong solution, IMHO.
Developers without good understanding of Relational Databases and SQL often produce problems that
cannot be solved by indexes, or throwing transistors at them.
It is so nice to see a "custom" made map implemented in the database using temporary tables instead of :-)
using the language's built-in map functionality
sorting arrays using the database gets extra points (no kidding, I have seen this!),
Dude, that isn't a lack of understanding regarding SQL. That's complete, utter incompetence.
And let me guess. This margin is too narrow to contain a description of your magic design pattern?
Experian is a regulated credit monitoring authority. They have done nothing to build up their brand as a trusted source (they are constantly cited for bad service, even)
Oh, no no, they're *far* more than that. They take their credit ratings data, along with data from a whole host of other sources (such as club cards, etc), and then for every individual they have information on, they categorize them in terms of age, income, gender, and a whole raft of other metrics. They then sell this information to advertisers for a pretty penny who use that data for direct mail campaigns and various other advertising. Trust me, between them and Acxiom, an advertiser can find out all kinds of things about you, personally. Heck, Experian tells you so right on their website:
Hell, Experian thinks their data is so good they believe they can help fight terrorism.
And they've been doing this for decades.
So, I maintain, if you're so worried about Google, you're far *far* too late. The horse is already out of that barn.
"Brainwashing" was your term. I never claimed that degree. I claimed bias. Bias is a far cry from brainwashing, but it can most definitely get you to buy products you were on the fence over buying.
And *that* is a far cry from buy things you'd "never otherwise have had interest in". So, can I assume you're backpedaling on that statement, now?
Because you cannot imagine a better world, no better world can exist? Because humans are flawed, no society can exist that can allow them to coexist in near-harmony?
No, it's because, as perfect as humanity could become, there's still gonna be some other race (call them the Dominion, or the Romulans, or the Borg, etc) that might decide to come along and try to take away the utopia they've worked so hard to build. And the minute that happens, you have a choice: defend yourself, or lose everything you've built. And I think it's patently obviously that self-defense may, in fact, require one to make hard choices from time to time.
Though, as an aside (as I think this is tangential to the topic at hand), I do happen to believe that "Because humans are flawed, no society can exist that can allow them to coexist in near-harmony". The simple fact is that humans *are* flawed. And there will always be people who will attempt to take advantage of others or gain power over them. To deny that is the height of naivete. And that fact makes it impossible for any human society to rise to the level of a true utopia.
That's not to say ST can't explore the *idea* of a true utopia. But no such society lives in isolation, and it will eventually come up against forces that challenge those utopian ideals.
I completely reject the notion that humanity cannot create new social structures, just as we build new technological structures, that are better than the ones we have today.
Of course we can. But unless you somehow completely eliminate the idea of a power relationship in those structures (which is impossible), then you will always have avenues for corruption that can be leveraged by the unscrupulous to take advantage of others. And voila, your utopia falters.
As for the rest, your comments are just based on your own expectations are what ST *should* be. And that's your choice, one that I won't be able to shake you from. I just believe your notions are unnecessarily narrow, and that if the writers of, say, TNG, took your stance, the show would have been lesser for it (see the great episode "The Drumhead" for an example of TNG at it's finest... TNG depicting a world that isn't the idealized utopia you believe ST should be based on).
Star Trek for me was supposed to be an idealized future, and we are the good guys. It had to tread carefully to avoid becoming overly preachy (and failed on occasion), but I'm not sure I like a darker or more warlike federation.
Ah, but that's not what DS9 ever portrayed. What they portrayed was an idealized future where the good guys were forced into war because, guess what, sometimes you have to fight to survive. And the minute your goal is survival, well surprise surprise, it's suddenly a lot harder to be idealistic.
I find this fascinating, though. To me, the entire reason Trek was flawed was because it's idealistic future was so wildly unbelievable. I'm sorry, but even in a world of limitless energy, food, and freedom, with perfect, idealized human beings, there's still going to be individuals/groups/races out there try to eat the good guys' lunch... you know, like the Dominion. And the minute you admit that, you have to be open to the idea of conflict with those people. And who would believe in a real, war-like conflict that didn't involve compromising one's ideals on occasion? At minimum, odds are you're going to have to kill on occasion, and last I checked, that's not a terribly nice, idealistic thing to do.
Then again, at least in my mind, this is the difference between sci-fi, as entertainment, and sci-fi as an actual intellectual genre. IMHO, Trek, in its idealized form, can only succeed in the former. To truly examine the human condition, a prerequisite to achieving the latter, you actually have to admit that humans are not, and will never be, perfect, idealized creatures living in a perfect, idealized world.
I gave it half a season before deciding it was too freaking lame to continue.
So I take it you never watched TNG, either? Or have you conveniently forgotten the horror show that was the majority of season one?
Are you serious? DS9 was The Care Bears Fussy Day compared to the ugliness of a real war
Heh, alright, fine, *some* of the attendant ugliness. Obviously there's no way they could do it "properly", Saving-Private-Ryan-style, but they at least *tried* (hell, one of the main characters got his leg blown off, for god sake!).
I disagree. Corporations have been collecting data, but at a snail's pace, and largely on far less sophisticated equipment.
Wow, you really have no idea. Look, I've seen the Experian categories. The level of granularity in their data is staggering. And a little disturbing. Trust me, they know more about you than you ever realized.
Even today, few corporations have the penetration and computing power (and engineering prowess) to collect that volume of data and pull off massive statistical crunching like Google.
ROFL! Guys like Experian have been doing this for *decades*. Google are mere babes in the area of data crunching when it comes to those guys.
Go do a little research. You might find yourself surprised.
I understand that we're losing our privacy, but I want to control how that happens and limit its damage, specifically as it pertains to how I am targeted through advertising. Your friends must be jerks if you think like that.
Not at all. They just don't have the same values you or I do. Me, I'm a little jealous about my privacy (although clearly not as... err... protective as you). But many people I know will become "friends" with complete strangers on Facebook. They'll post pictures and details about their lives that I'd never even consider. Unfortunately, that sometimes means divulging information about *me*... and once it's out there, it's too late to take it back.
If you like, I can obtain a dozen peer-reviewed papers that present compelling evidence to that fact. Just consider: why do companies advertise? why do those advertisements often do nothing but say the company name? The answer is that they are building a brand, which equates to trust.
And that does *not* equate to "buying things you would never otherwise have had interest in". *That* is brainwashing, and is a far, far cry from brand building. Now, if you can find a peer reviewed journal that demonstrates that advertising can induce someone to buy something they "never otherwise have had interest in", I'll be very impressed. I'm sure the advertisers would be, as well.
Yes, if by "truly great" you mean bailed out with a plot device (wormhole aliens) and don't stop to question why Captain Sisko seemed to be single-handily running the Federation's war-effort, ranging from commanding a fleet of some 600 ships on his own to commanding a ground battle that could have been ended in two minutes if any of the Trek powers had the equivalent of machine guns or artillery. Are there really no infantry weapons bigger than rifles in the 24th century?
Meh, I never said the show was flawless. But it was, in those seasons, as good as the best TNG, IMHO, and far better than anything Voyager or Enterprise have ever offered.
I agree, the wormhole aliens solution was a bit contrived (although, it makes sense in the context of the show... the aliens are supposedly a) all-powerful, and b) the custodians of Bajor... going to them for help isn't unreasonable). Then again, was Data's solution to the Borg problem in "Best of Both Worlds" any less contrived? And as for Sisko's role, well... you could just as easily level the same criticism against Picard in TNG leading the charge in any number of engagements.
Garek had the best character in the series (IMHO) and Eddington's critique of the Federation particularly damning:
I couldn't agree more. I also think the episode in which there was an attempted military coup on Earth was brilliantly executed.
It's funny, though. You say that "portraying a federation that was, for a change, flawed and multifaceted" "was actually one of the redeeming things about it." To me, that's what makes the series brilliant.
I mean, the goal of science fiction shouldn't be to present funny aliens, or to give nerds neat technology to drool over. It should be to use the setting as an environment in which one can then explore the human condition in a way that would otherwise be impossible. DS9 attempted to do that, exploring the decisions and compromises one must make during a time of war, and it did so better than, I think, any other other Trek, save for TNG.