When you know who the foxes are, you keep closer watch over the henhouse. That just makes sense. It can be argued that there's still a role for inclusivity, but it has to be tempered with a dose of common sense.
You mean like the alleged hole that supposedly left Microsoft with no choice but to remove NPAPI plugin support from IE back in the 1990s?
Frankly, this is huge. Direct3D is probably Microsoft's second most effective tool for locking-in users (behind MSOffice) and the single most effective tool for locking-in developers. To officially support its open competitor -and in a way that would allow apps (read: games) to actually be played on other platforms, no less- is uncharacteristic of them, to put it mildly. Are they so afraid of WebGL's potential that they see simply supporting it as less risky than embrace-extend-extinguish?
It seems to me that at this point, the South Koreans should be putting a number of "Asylum Centers" near the DMZ, where North Korean soldiers (and others, though soldiers would be the primary target audience) can turn in their weapons and cross into South Korea. Arm the centers heavily enough that they could provide cover fire for someone running from the North Korean border being shot at by his ex-comrades.
You could probably bleed off a significant portion of the North Korean military this way, with very little in the way of actual casualties for either side. Then again, I suspect that the majority of North Korean deaths in such a conflict wouldn't be in combat anyway, but from mass suicides when their Dear Marshal is brought down.
The folks behind Wayland and the like do have some valid points. The way people use X has changed drastically in the years since X11. Generally that's been for the better, sometimes for the worse, but there's certainly no denying the difference: there are entire subsystems in X that no one uses anymore. We should be using X12 to make a clean break with that.
Nothing was really wrong with the protocol. If we're going to be swapping image buffers around from now on, I'd prefer something more along the lines of Rio's insanely clean protocol, but X, VNC, or Wayland could all do. However, the Wayland folks do seem to be trying to get rid of X simply because it's X, and that's just gratuitous.
It doesn't actually affect my decision to not go to next year's PyCon, because there are already other factors in play that override it. I can't go. But the initial attempt at a code of conduct, and the response to things blowing up (i.e. refining the code of conduct), certainly make me more interested, if only to encourage this line of action. That's not to say the system is perfect even now, but it continues to evolve in a positive direction.
I'm not sure I understand. Anakin did get married in the prequels, but I'm pretty sure I remember people telling him that he wasn't supposed to. Are you saying that not being supposed to marry is a retcon?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought Jedi weren't supposed to marry, at least as of the movies. Is this going to be an Extended Universe sect thing? What does the Core sect think of this?
Most people don't block ads just to block ads. They block ads because of one egregious practice or another: tracking, annoyance, or outright rendering sites unusable.
The answer, then, is simple: no tracking, no audio, no popups, no Flash. Pledge not to use ads that do these things, and ask to be whitelisted. People will do that.
There was a time when these practices actually made ads more valuable, because they would get better response rates: upwards of 5% in some cases, which is freaking astounding for advertising. But if ad-blocker usage is really getting that prevalent -upwards of 50% for tech sites, so probably more like 10% for the general Internet- advertisers are washing away the potential gains from these practices. The consumer simply won't stand for these practices in enough numbers to make them worthwhile, and so it is time to abandon them.
They have no right to label you as a patient-from-hell for all eternity!
They do if it's true. They also have the right to note if the situation changes, though that's not the most common occurrence.
Every doctor you go to will see these comments about you...
...and has a legitimate need-to-know about that sort of thing.
...but under your system you have no idea what they're reading about you. In your permanent record.
If you have reason to believe that the private "permanent record" is doing you harm, this is what the court order is for. The possibility is inherently damaging to doctor-patient relationships, which is why a court order is necessary to minimize frivolous use.
Split the record into a "data" section and a private "remarks" section. Patients get unrestricted access to their own data sections, but require a court order to see the remarks. Establish clear rules for what can go in the remarks section: everything else must go into data, and inappropriate use of the remarks section itself counts as a minor form of malpractice.
This should strike an appropriate balance. Patients can still get at the significant stuff, and they have recourse to get the rest if it's truly necessary. Doctors can continue to comment frankly about patients-from-Hell, without having to worry about being embarrassed unless they already have much bigger problems.
China won't attack. They'd have done so already if they ever really intended to. Instead, a toxic combination of Mohism, Communist solidarity, and simple loss of face pretty much binds them to act the way they currently do, whether or not they actually want to.
The word "technically" is right where it belongs, for good or for ill. Both, really, when you consider some of the things that the fact of the US' technical state of war has been used for.
I think the phrase you're thinking of is de facto.
If you really want to get technical about things, the Korean War never ended. There's a longstanding cease-fire in place (one which North Korea seems poised to abandon), but peace was never actually declared.
Frankly, I think it's time to give China a little incentive to look the other way for a few months. No "buffer zone" could possibly be worth the trouble North Korea is bringing to their doorstep.
And the lack of adequate sealing in the lower compartments. It might actually have stayed afloat long enough for help to arrive if they'd been sealed at the top.
As in "a lifting of the veil", not "the end of the world."
Oh, it may be the end of the world for Gamestop: a chain built on used contemporary games that caters to the contemporary gamer. But the few used-game stores not bought up by Gamestop during its boom survived without even having to pivot all that much: now they work with retro games -the stuff Gamestop doesn't carry- and modern merchandise. You can't build a mega-chain on that (yet, though we'll see what the death of used games does to that), but you can survive, and these places are pretty much already where they need to be when all used games are retro by definition.
As much as I would love to believe this is true, it's worth pointing out that the same things were said 25 years before Y2K, and there was still a lot of code that had to be handled.
The real protest in civil disobedience starts when you pay the price, not when you do the deed. This is what gets the dialogue started, this is how you draw sympathy to your cause. The activists of decades past understood this. When exactly did we as a culture forget?
The term "critical thinking" has long since ceased to be useful when it comes to politics. All sides have wielded it for years as a weapon to claim that their opposition doesn't think: a dangerous meme that has done great harm to the political landscape, because refusing to acknowledge the functioning minds in the opposition renders debate useless.
But even if we go by more solid definitions of the term, it is in no way particular to scientists. Given the current state of science, I'm not sure we can even call it any more inherent to scientists than it is to True Scotsmen (tm). Why, then, privilege their viewpoints outside of their particular fields? Not only is it an appeal to authority, which would be fallacious in and of itself, it's an appeal to authority they don't even have.
That assumes that international politics is a series of independent events, which simply is not the case (though in some ways it might be better if it were). History matters, for good and for ill, and a history of non-hostile relations does indeed decrease the danger.
Slashdot Mirror
When you know who the foxes are, you keep closer watch over the henhouse. That just makes sense. It can be argued that there's still a role for inclusivity, but it has to be tempered with a dose of common sense.
So code to the standards and test across browsers. You should be doing that anyway.
You mean like the alleged hole that supposedly left Microsoft with no choice but to remove NPAPI plugin support from IE back in the 1990s?
Frankly, this is huge. Direct3D is probably Microsoft's second most effective tool for locking-in users (behind MSOffice) and the single most effective tool for locking-in developers. To officially support its open competitor -and in a way that would allow apps (read: games) to actually be played on other platforms, no less- is uncharacteristic of them, to put it mildly. Are they so afraid of WebGL's potential that they see simply supporting it as less risky than embrace-extend-extinguish?
It seems to me that at this point, the South Koreans should be putting a number of "Asylum Centers" near the DMZ, where North Korean soldiers (and others, though soldiers would be the primary target audience) can turn in their weapons and cross into South Korea. Arm the centers heavily enough that they could provide cover fire for someone running from the North Korean border being shot at by his ex-comrades.
You could probably bleed off a significant portion of the North Korean military this way, with very little in the way of actual casualties for either side. Then again, I suspect that the majority of North Korean deaths in such a conflict wouldn't be in combat anyway, but from mass suicides when their Dear Marshal is brought down.
The folks behind Wayland and the like do have some valid points. The way people use X has changed drastically in the years since X11. Generally that's been for the better, sometimes for the worse, but there's certainly no denying the difference: there are entire subsystems in X that no one uses anymore. We should be using X12 to make a clean break with that.
Nothing was really wrong with the protocol. If we're going to be swapping image buffers around from now on, I'd prefer something more along the lines of Rio's insanely clean protocol, but X, VNC, or Wayland could all do. However, the Wayland folks do seem to be trying to get rid of X simply because it's X, and that's just gratuitous.
It doesn't actually affect my decision to not go to next year's PyCon, because there are already other factors in play that override it. I can't go. But the initial attempt at a code of conduct, and the response to things blowing up (i.e. refining the code of conduct), certainly make me more interested, if only to encourage this line of action. That's not to say the system is perfect even now, but it continues to evolve in a positive direction.
I'm not sure I understand. Anakin did get married in the prequels, but I'm pretty sure I remember people telling him that he wasn't supposed to. Are you saying that not being supposed to marry is a retcon?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought Jedi weren't supposed to marry, at least as of the movies. Is this going to be an Extended Universe sect thing? What does the Core sect think of this?
Most people don't block ads just to block ads. They block ads because of one egregious practice or another: tracking, annoyance, or outright rendering sites unusable.
The answer, then, is simple: no tracking, no audio, no popups, no Flash. Pledge not to use ads that do these things, and ask to be whitelisted. People will do that.
There was a time when these practices actually made ads more valuable, because they would get better response rates: upwards of 5% in some cases, which is freaking astounding for advertising. But if ad-blocker usage is really getting that prevalent -upwards of 50% for tech sites, so probably more like 10% for the general Internet- advertisers are washing away the potential gains from these practices. The consumer simply won't stand for these practices in enough numbers to make them worthwhile, and so it is time to abandon them.
For the same reasons organisms do: on a biological level, genetic variation is a big part of how we can adapt to changing circumstances.
Widespread cloning would be really, really bad for the gene pool.
They have no right to label you as a patient-from-hell for all eternity!
They do if it's true. They also have the right to note if the situation changes, though that's not the most common occurrence.
Every doctor you go to will see these comments about you...
...and has a legitimate need-to-know about that sort of thing.
...but under your system you have no idea what they're reading about you. In your permanent record.
If you have reason to believe that the private "permanent record" is doing you harm, this is what the court order is for. The possibility is inherently damaging to doctor-patient relationships, which is why a court order is necessary to minimize frivolous use.
Split the record into a "data" section and a private "remarks" section. Patients get unrestricted access to their own data sections, but require a court order to see the remarks. Establish clear rules for what can go in the remarks section: everything else must go into data, and inappropriate use of the remarks section itself counts as a minor form of malpractice.
This should strike an appropriate balance. Patients can still get at the significant stuff, and they have recourse to get the rest if it's truly necessary. Doctors can continue to comment frankly about patients-from-Hell, without having to worry about being embarrassed unless they already have much bigger problems.
China won't attack. They'd have done so already if they ever really intended to. Instead, a toxic combination of Mohism, Communist solidarity, and simple loss of face pretty much binds them to act the way they currently do, whether or not they actually want to.
Any sufficiently left-wing policy is indistinguishable from a right-wing policy. The reverse is also true.
The word "technically" is right where it belongs, for good or for ill. Both, really, when you consider some of the things that the fact of the US' technical state of war has been used for.
I think the phrase you're thinking of is de facto.
If you really want to get technical about things, the Korean War never ended. There's a longstanding cease-fire in place (one which North Korea seems poised to abandon), but peace was never actually declared.
Frankly, I think it's time to give China a little incentive to look the other way for a few months. No "buffer zone" could possibly be worth the trouble North Korea is bringing to their doorstep.
And the lack of adequate sealing in the lower compartments. It might actually have stayed afloat long enough for help to arrive if they'd been sealed at the top.
As in "a lifting of the veil", not "the end of the world."
Oh, it may be the end of the world for Gamestop: a chain built on used contemporary games that caters to the contemporary gamer. But the few used-game stores not bought up by Gamestop during its boom survived without even having to pivot all that much: now they work with retro games -the stuff Gamestop doesn't carry- and modern merchandise. You can't build a mega-chain on that (yet, though we'll see what the death of used games does to that), but you can survive, and these places are pretty much already where they need to be when all used games are retro by definition.
As much as I would love to believe this is true, it's worth pointing out that the same things were said 25 years before Y2K, and there was still a lot of code that had to be handled.
What is "proportion"? Who decides, and on what basis?
The real protest in civil disobedience starts when you pay the price, not when you do the deed. This is what gets the dialogue started, this is how you draw sympathy to your cause. The activists of decades past understood this. When exactly did we as a culture forget?
The term "critical thinking" has long since ceased to be useful when it comes to politics. All sides have wielded it for years as a weapon to claim that their opposition doesn't think: a dangerous meme that has done great harm to the political landscape, because refusing to acknowledge the functioning minds in the opposition renders debate useless.
But even if we go by more solid definitions of the term, it is in no way particular to scientists. Given the current state of science, I'm not sure we can even call it any more inherent to scientists than it is to True Scotsmen (tm). Why, then, privilege their viewpoints outside of their particular fields? Not only is it an appeal to authority, which would be fallacious in and of itself, it's an appeal to authority they don't even have.
I don't understand. Are you agreeing with me or arguing against me?
That assumes that international politics is a series of independent events, which simply is not the case (though in some ways it might be better if it were). History matters, for good and for ill, and a history of non-hostile relations does indeed decrease the danger.