Suppose I could save millions of children from a mental disability by torturing thousands of severely mentally disabled humans. Would you do it?
Yeah, the argument is equally meaningless. And, similarly, if I were to say "yes", that doesn't constitute a reasoned argument that the rights of disabled people are subordinate to those of "normal" people. It's simply an opinion.
Try again. Why are severely mentally disabled people who display the same level of reasoning and intelligence as a chimpanzee protected, while a chimp isn't?
By the way, many (including yourself, perhaps) may answer "because a chimp isn't human", in which case I might point out that white supremacists use similar arguments when explaining why blacks shouldn't have rights...
PS Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about this ruling. I'm mostly interested in reasoned arguments one way or the other. So far, I haven't seen any.
That was a little clumsy. The least you could have done was tangentially address his point, first, before erecting and triumphantly knocking down your strawman.
Now, I don't think so - which leads me to believe that the system of morality enforced in society through customs and laws should serve to make society run smoothly, and to guarantee some basic rights to the people who live init.
And that second part demonstrates that you don't actually believe that rights are purely pragmatic. Otherwise, why have the statement there? If society runs perfectly smoothly because the state murders those considered inferior, under your formulation of rights, that should be sufficient, no?
Thus, I believe in equally enforced morality for all humans - because frankly, I don't feel that much kinship with non-human apes, plus I see roughly zero benefit in granting chimps human rights (unlike the case of granting humans human rights).
Alright. Then I say we kill all mentally disabled children. There's no danger in them fighting back, so it doesn't effect me in a negative way. And, let's face it, these children are a burden on society. What's the benefit of providing them rights?
So what you're saying is you believe human rights are valued, not because of their basis in morality, but because we get something back for honouring them? IOW, I don't kill my neighbour because I don't want my other neighbour to kill me? That's... incredibly cynical.
And like a no trespass sign and a 3-foot fence, for most people, it's good enough. Of course, for a business, they'll want something more secure, but for a home AP, *most* people have little to worry about, since your average WiFi thief is a naive 22-year-old with a laptop who is unwilling to pay for broadband and has no idea how to crack WEP (or even knows what that means).
I continue to be amazed that some company hasn't produced a simple bridging tool to make it easy to flash the light. A plastic stick, sized to fit perfectly in the access hole on the back of the lite, with a little metal pad attached to the end and *only* to the end, would make flashing pretty easy.
Hmm... sounds like an interesting new project for when my phat replacement arrives...
Because the dems are the reason Iraq is going to hell and relations with Iran are declining rapidly, thus creating market instability, all while we're entering peak fuel consumption season?
Yeah, I call bullshit. I live in Edmonton, Canada, northernmost major city in Canada. We get a sum total of maybe a month and a half of weather below -30C and plenty of snow during the winter, and we still have at *least* 6 months of pleasant cycling weather, and I have certainly cycled winter-round in the past.
Oh, and BTW, if a 15 minute car ride regularly turns into 120 minutes of cycling, you're doing something very very wrong.
Likewise, Windows has never, and will never, run GIMP or Gaim. Yes, it has GIMP for Windows and Gaim for windows, which are *remakes* of the originals specifically tailored for Windows.
Correct. What's your point? Mine was that the DS will never run a Nintendo 64 emulator, and comparing a DS-targeted remake of Super Mario 64 to a PSP Nintendo 64 emulator makes no sense, as they're drastically different animals. Thus the post is hardly insightful, and is definitely off-topic.
It's not so much a remake as a port with a few additional features.
And you know this how? The DS is significantly different than the Nintendo 64 from a hardware standpoint. I'd be very surprised if it was just a straight port. Wikipedia describes it as an "enhanced remake", though it's hardly an authoritative source.
I don't know why you would get so angry with the poster for mentioning anything like this, for one thing, it's perfectly true.
Umm, no, I don't believe it's true, and thus, to me, it constitutes blatant misinformation, not to mention irritating fanboism.
And before you paint me as a Sony shill, I have a DS phat, plan to get a Lite, and will be buying a Wii.
Furthermore, questioning the +1 insightful in that manner is simply childish, he had a perfectly ligitimate reason for marking it in that way.
Actually, no. As far as I'm aware, the comment is simply *wrong*. Thus to claim it's insightful is, simply put, dumb. Worse, in an article about emulation, the post triumphantly crows about a remake, as if these are the same things. They're not, and so the post is at best off-topic.
Furthermore, WHY run Mario 64 on the PSP?
Well, that's a good question.:) Although, the goal is probably to run other Nintendo 64 games on the PSP, which is an interesting-enough goal. After all, plenty of other console emulators are available for it, why not the Nintendo 64?
As an aside, I highly doubt they'll reach full speed with that thing, but it's interesting, nonetheless.
Playing old games is great, but it's stupid to be playing them at the expense of good new games.
And this I just don't understand. How is emulating the Nintendo 64 being done "at the expense of good new games"?
And how big was the screen? And what was the viewing distance? I ask, because the angular acuity of the eye is limited, and if this is on a 32" widescreen, as the GP suggested, then at a viewing distance of, say, 6 feet or more (my TV is probably 11 feet from my couch), your eyes are probably incapable of seeing the difference between SD and HD content.
What kind of crack do you smoke? It's gotta be pretty amazing stuff, because the DS has never, and will never, run Super Mario 64. Yes, it has Super Mario DS, which is a *remake* of the original specifically tailored for the DS, but that's hardly the same thing as emulating a Nintendo 64 so you can run the original game.
Fact is, if someone had the rights and the willingness, they could easily reimplement Super Mario 64 for the PSP. No one will, but they could.
And to the moron who modded that post up as insightful, please turn in your modpoints, you're too stupid to use them.
Most users need not be concerned with the fact that the feature exists, much less that there's a setting you can change.
Well clearly there are quite a few users that are concerned about memory usage, and if making these options available to those users can improve Firefox's image as a memory hog, then I'd say it's worth it to expose them via the preferences.
Besides, if it were in the preference dialog, some small percentage of users would change it to some insanely large value like 999, see Firefox consume huge amounts of memory, and then ask for the horribly obvious memory hogging problem to be solved. That wouldn't make the memory complaints go away, but instead make them worse.
Oh come on, now. This is very easy to deal with. You put the performance controls in an "Advanced..." dialog with sufficient warnings about memory usage. If they crank the number above some predetermined percentage (say, 50% of physical), then pop up a warning dialog that what they're doing will cause Firefox to consume very large amounts of memory.
Honestly, this is trivial stuff. Your attitude is born of a disdain for users, and *that* is a very bad thing for the Firefox project.
OTOH, I installed OO.org on my mother-in-law's computer, and she's perfectly happy with it. I suspect the difference is one of familiarity. Your secretary is probably quite familiar with Office, and rather used to it's appearance and behaviour. A person like that will inevitably complain because OO is different from what they're used to. Heck, they may even make up complaints to justify their position.
Is there something wrong with the feature? It does take more memory than if you disable the feature, but that's how it works -- by caching the DOM of recently visited pages so you can go back to them faster. If you don't like it, simply set browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to 0.
Yes, but this should be a standard preference, as should the related performance tuning parameters which control the amount of memory Firefox consumes. The fact that you need to go into about:config and change a rather obscurely named parameter constitutes a failure of the dev team, IMHO.
They do indeed. They're a bit bulkier than one might expect, but mine looks pretty frickin' awesome under my TV, loaded with a nice Via board and MythTV. Virtually silent, too...
You don't agree that someone writing "fictional works" about the bombing of government offices, for pleasure, is someone who deserves to be, at the very least, monitored?
Of course not! Jesus, by that definition, Alan Moore should be "monitored" for writing V for Vendetta.
Meh, here in Edmonton, Canada, I've seen a total of three PSPs. One of them is owned by a relative, one was owned by some teen on the bus, and another by a young mother and her kid. Meanwhile, I have a DS, three of my co-workers have a DS, and a fourth is thinking of picking one up (he loves Castlevania games). And my office isn't particularly big.
The point to take from this? Tiny sample sizes don't make for valid statistics...
Re:Great editor but the C parser sucks
on
TextMate
·
· Score: 1
Please, god, tell me Slashdot just mangled your whitespace...
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose I could save millions of children from a mental disability by torturing thousands of severely mentally disabled humans. Would you do it?
Yeah, the argument is equally meaningless. And, similarly, if I were to say "yes", that doesn't constitute a reasoned argument that the rights of disabled people are subordinate to those of "normal" people. It's simply an opinion.
Try again. Why are severely mentally disabled people who display the same level of reasoning and intelligence as a chimpanzee protected, while a chimp isn't?
By the way, many (including yourself, perhaps) may answer "because a chimp isn't human", in which case I might point out that white supremacists use similar arguments when explaining why blacks shouldn't have rights...
PS Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about this ruling. I'm mostly interested in reasoned arguments one way or the other. So far, I haven't seen any.
That was a little clumsy. The least you could have done was tangentially address his point, first, before erecting and triumphantly knocking down your strawman.
Now, I don't think so - which leads me to believe that the system of morality enforced in society through customs and laws should serve to make society run smoothly, and to guarantee some basic rights to the people who live init.
And that second part demonstrates that you don't actually believe that rights are purely pragmatic. Otherwise, why have the statement there? If society runs perfectly smoothly because the state murders those considered inferior, under your formulation of rights, that should be sufficient, no?
Thus, I believe in equally enforced morality for all humans - because frankly, I don't feel that much kinship with non-human apes, plus I see roughly zero benefit in granting chimps human rights (unlike the case of granting humans human rights).
Alright. Then I say we kill all mentally disabled children. There's no danger in them fighting back, so it doesn't effect me in a negative way. And, let's face it, these children are a burden on society. What's the benefit of providing them rights?
Perhaps the mentally disabled is a better example, then? Do you believe someone who's severely autistic has no human rights?
Okay, but why? And why can't we say other animals are intrinsically valuable?
Because god made us in his image.
No, srsly, for many, that's why, and that's good enough.
So what you're saying is you believe human rights are valued, not because of their basis in morality, but because we get something back for honouring them? IOW, I don't kill my neighbour because I don't want my other neighbour to kill me? That's... incredibly cynical.
And like a no trespass sign and a 3-foot fence, for most people, it's good enough. Of course, for a business, they'll want something more secure, but for a home AP, *most* people have little to worry about, since your average WiFi thief is a naive 22-year-old with a laptop who is unwilling to pay for broadband and has no idea how to crack WEP (or even knows what that means).
I continue to be amazed that some company hasn't produced a simple bridging tool to make it easy to flash the light. A plastic stick, sized to fit perfectly in the access hole on the back of the lite, with a little metal pad attached to the end and *only* to the end, would make flashing pretty easy.
Hmm... sounds like an interesting new project for when my phat replacement arrives...
Or if you want to traverse floors in old homes with firebreaks.
Because the dems are the reason Iraq is going to hell and relations with Iran are declining rapidly, thus creating market instability, all while we're entering peak fuel consumption season?
The time change did not affect the amount of daylight, or the number of hours over which that daylight was distributed.
/. But that's hardly surprising, now is it?
Apparently, it all had no effect on the level of pedantism present on
Yeah, I call bullshit. I live in Edmonton, Canada, northernmost major city in Canada. We get a sum total of maybe a month and a half of weather below -30C and plenty of snow during the winter, and we still have at *least* 6 months of pleasant cycling weather, and I have certainly cycled winter-round in the past.
Oh, and BTW, if a 15 minute car ride regularly turns into 120 minutes of cycling, you're doing something very very wrong.
Likewise, Windows has never, and will never, run GIMP or Gaim. Yes, it has GIMP for Windows and Gaim for windows, which are *remakes* of the originals specifically tailored for Windows.
Correct. What's your point? Mine was that the DS will never run a Nintendo 64 emulator, and comparing a DS-targeted remake of Super Mario 64 to a PSP Nintendo 64 emulator makes no sense, as they're drastically different animals. Thus the post is hardly insightful, and is definitely off-topic.
It's not so much a remake as a port with a few additional features.
:) Although, the goal is probably to run other Nintendo 64 games on the PSP, which is an interesting-enough goal. After all, plenty of other console emulators are available for it, why not the Nintendo 64?
And you know this how? The DS is significantly different than the Nintendo 64 from a hardware standpoint. I'd be very surprised if it was just a straight port. Wikipedia describes it as an "enhanced remake", though it's hardly an authoritative source.
I don't know why you would get so angry with the poster for mentioning anything like this, for one thing, it's perfectly true.
Umm, no, I don't believe it's true, and thus, to me, it constitutes blatant misinformation, not to mention irritating fanboism.
And before you paint me as a Sony shill, I have a DS phat, plan to get a Lite, and will be buying a Wii.
Furthermore, questioning the +1 insightful in that manner is simply childish, he had a perfectly ligitimate reason for marking it in that way.
Actually, no. As far as I'm aware, the comment is simply *wrong*. Thus to claim it's insightful is, simply put, dumb. Worse, in an article about emulation, the post triumphantly crows about a remake, as if these are the same things. They're not, and so the post is at best off-topic.
Furthermore, WHY run Mario 64 on the PSP?
Well, that's a good question.
As an aside, I highly doubt they'll reach full speed with that thing, but it's interesting, nonetheless.
Playing old games is great, but it's stupid to be playing them at the expense of good new games.
And this I just don't understand. How is emulating the Nintendo 64 being done "at the expense of good new games"?
And how big was the screen? And what was the viewing distance? I ask, because the angular acuity of the eye is limited, and if this is on a 32" widescreen, as the GP suggested, then at a viewing distance of, say, 6 feet or more (my TV is probably 11 feet from my couch), your eyes are probably incapable of seeing the difference between SD and HD content.
What kind of crack do you smoke? It's gotta be pretty amazing stuff, because the DS has never, and will never, run Super Mario 64. Yes, it has Super Mario DS, which is a *remake* of the original specifically tailored for the DS, but that's hardly the same thing as emulating a Nintendo 64 so you can run the original game.
Fact is, if someone had the rights and the willingness, they could easily reimplement Super Mario 64 for the PSP. No one will, but they could.
And to the moron who modded that post up as insightful, please turn in your modpoints, you're too stupid to use them.
Most users need not be concerned with the fact that the feature exists, much less that there's a setting you can change.
Well clearly there are quite a few users that are concerned about memory usage, and if making these options available to those users can improve Firefox's image as a memory hog, then I'd say it's worth it to expose them via the preferences.
Besides, if it were in the preference dialog, some small percentage of users would change it to some insanely large value like 999, see Firefox consume huge amounts of memory, and then ask for the horribly obvious memory hogging problem to be solved. That wouldn't make the memory complaints go away, but instead make them worse.
Oh come on, now. This is very easy to deal with. You put the performance controls in an "Advanced..." dialog with sufficient warnings about memory usage. If they crank the number above some predetermined percentage (say, 50% of physical), then pop up a warning dialog that what they're doing will cause Firefox to consume very large amounts of memory.
Honestly, this is trivial stuff. Your attitude is born of a disdain for users, and *that* is a very bad thing for the Firefox project.
OTOH, I installed OO.org on my mother-in-law's computer, and she's perfectly happy with it. I suspect the difference is one of familiarity. Your secretary is probably quite familiar with Office, and rather used to it's appearance and behaviour. A person like that will inevitably complain because OO is different from what they're used to. Heck, they may even make up complaints to justify their position.
...relatively speaking as the "consensus" today. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember, but I am, and it was in the news quite a bit.
Ooooh, so now the fearmongering *media* represents the majority of scientists? Well, that clinches it, then, doesn't it?
Is there something wrong with the feature? It does take more memory than if you disable the feature, but that's how it works -- by caching the DOM of recently visited pages so you can go back to them faster. If you don't like it, simply set browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to 0.
Yes, but this should be a standard preference, as should the related performance tuning parameters which control the amount of memory Firefox consumes. The fact that you need to go into about:config and change a rather obscurely named parameter constitutes a failure of the dev team, IMHO.
They do indeed. They're a bit bulkier than one might expect, but mine looks pretty frickin' awesome under my TV, loaded with a nice Via board and MythTV. Virtually silent, too...
And then I read the grandparent... *sigh*
You don't agree that someone writing "fictional works" about the bombing of government offices, for pleasure, is someone who deserves to be, at the very least, monitored?
Of course not! Jesus, by that definition, Alan Moore should be "monitored" for writing V for Vendetta.
Meh, here in Edmonton, Canada, I've seen a total of three PSPs. One of them is owned by a relative, one was owned by some teen on the bus, and another by a young mother and her kid. Meanwhile, I have a DS, three of my co-workers have a DS, and a fourth is thinking of picking one up (he loves Castlevania games). And my office isn't particularly big.
The point to take from this? Tiny sample sizes don't make for valid statistics...
Please, god, tell me Slashdot just mangled your whitespace...