The way these things are best challenged is usually after-the-fact in court. If you want to ignore that and challenge police while they're doing your duty, you'd better have a really good reason.
With GNOME3, we know that the GNOME folk have jumped the shark. They took the nice, tuned, usable interface that everyone understood and was okay with in GNOME2 and threw it all away for something that looks like it was somebody's experiment in making a tablet UI. It's utterly full of fail.
Forests: There is not a consensus on whether old-growth versus new-growth forests have more biodiversity; often the old-growth has more (but not always). The fires themselves can easily wipe out biodiversity as well (sure, they might wipe out disease too, but they easily might not; the fire doesn't really care if the tree is sick or healthy).
Human hunting of wildlife: Depends on how much, but mostly we don't have a role to play in the food chain; we play too well and there are far too many of us for most of us to hunt. Almost *any* food we eat feeds people using natural resources; hunting is no different. At our present population, the only way we can feed our species requires farming and possibly livestock. Any exceptions are not sustainable for our whole species.
Hunting predators: Maybe. It's bad for biodiversity, but it does keep our livestock and human populations safe. However, we're not a natural predator of predators. If you want to trust nature, the systems will balance themselves (we're not guaranteed to like the results though).
Domestic oil drilling: It really depends on where. Also, our appetite for oil is such that we can't come close to meeting our needs for a long time with domestic drilling; if it's even possible that we may eventually, it'll happen far enough in the future that hopefully we'll have moved on to smarter sources of energy by then. That said, if there are areas that are not ecologically fragile where we can safely extract oil and use ot to help lessen our needs, it'd be a good idea to use them.
I have no idea where you're even going with sun cycles. The effects of variance in sun cycles are miniscule; not enough to explain any climate trends whatsoever.
On learning to tend the environment, we've learned a lot. Early ham-fisted efforts are not indicative of what we can do now, as we've learned from our mistakes.
What you posted is a mixed bag of half-truths, red herrings, and oversimplifications. Some of it's outright wrong. If you're interested, we can go over it bit-by-bit.
They need to understand that it does not suggest high amounts of clue when they tell us CO2 is part of nature as if that were some kind of an argument. Proportions are important.
I am confident that there are many people I could tutor up to being able to program reasonably given a year. Doing this in a large classroom sounds really difficult, but I won't discount the possibility that someone managed to come up with enough of a condensed curriculum that they can do this for a fair number of people, at least enough that they can fill a number of low-to-mid-level programming jobs. They might not understand a lot of the theory, but the one thing we know about the future is that there will be a need for a lot of programmers at various skill levels.
Kind of like H.P. Lovecraft, really. Imaginative world, writing is meh.
It's amusing that Tolkien was nominated by CS Lewis, another person whose religious commitments made his work far more shallow and one-dimensional than it could've been.
If this is right, then we IP Abolitionists just need to go up against impossibly wealthy entrenched interests to get the legal system fixed. Easy, right?
Americans Elect's board is primarily staffed by the far right. This is simply an effort to split the liberal vote. Go look it up; it's pretty easy to find that Americans Elect's board alone makes it untrustworthy.
Not that finding the center between Dems and Republicans is worthwhile anyhow.
You could do that, but the OLPCs still provide a much better learning environment, and the community around them has done a much better job at providing minority language support (or making it easy to roll one's own).
I don't even know what Moto-Blur is. I don't have it, I've never seen it, and I don't think it's part of the Android platform. I'm guessing it's a Motorola customisation? With iOS, you're missing big parts of the core platform. The last I looked, Darwin wasn't close to being a complete OSX either. (That said, it's good that Apple is shipping some of that stuff; better than nothing). Darwin is a complete and usable OS (I know, I've installed it a few times), but it's hardly an opensource iOS/OSX, and unlike with the Android sources, it's not usable as a platform tour/development target. Android really is opensource.
You may have a point on ObjC. I don't think it's a big one; it's not like there are still nib files (I used to be a NeXTStep developer ages ago) users/devs can still dig their hands into, but the OpenStep frameworks and some of the language infrastructure around it are pretty aimed towards extension.
I would at least be considerably more cautious with how you do your advocacy; it looks to me like you're jumping on reasonably small things and inflating them until they burst, with little regard for the facts. Apple has done a fantastic job with getting the APIs right for development (mainly because when they were acquired by NeXT (haha), they picked up that coding culture). They're still the bad old apple when it comes to the walled-garden mentality, the ridiculous lawsuit mentality, and the our-users-don't-deserve-options-UI folk. They don't do everything right, but that doesn't mean they do nothing right.
Personally, I'd like them to mostly leave their products the same but be a lot more open with their platform strategy.
Is the bulk of your claim that if you install Darwin on your phone, you essentially have a mostly-working iOS install, and that Objective-C is better than Java?
As far as I know, the first is not true, and the second is at least a questionable claim, given that language preferences vary so much.
Android may not be the best imaginable mobile OS, but it's certainly a lot more open than iOS.
How do they differ from a political blogger or news-analysis firm? Does Stratfor have an agenda? (Note that I am not saying they don't, but I seriously have never heard of Stratfor pushing one)
There are a fair number of us who do political blogging/analysis as a hobby, sometimes bringing in political philosophy. There are also some fantastic current events journals like Far Eastern Affairs. Is Stratfor more like them or more like the people at the Heritage Foundation (which usually strikes me as pretty sinister)?
I don't know if Anonymous actually did this or not, and Stratfor doesn't seem obviously bad. Need more information!
Slashdot Mirror
The way these things are best challenged is usually after-the-fact in court. If you want to ignore that and challenge police while they're doing your duty, you'd better have a really good reason.
The user's browser settings should take precedence over some web service.
With GNOME3, we know that the GNOME folk have jumped the shark. They took the nice, tuned, usable interface that everyone understood and was okay with in GNOME2 and threw it all away for something that looks like it was somebody's experiment in making a tablet UI. It's utterly full of fail.
Seriously, what's wrong with having a bunch of competing definitions?
Forests: There is not a consensus on whether old-growth versus new-growth forests have more biodiversity; often the old-growth has more (but not always). The fires themselves can easily wipe out biodiversity as well (sure, they might wipe out disease too, but they easily might not; the fire doesn't really care if the tree is sick or healthy).
Human hunting of wildlife: Depends on how much, but mostly we don't have a role to play in the food chain; we play too well and there are far too many of us for most of us to hunt. Almost *any* food we eat feeds people using natural resources; hunting is no different. At our present population, the only way we can feed our species requires farming and possibly livestock. Any exceptions are not sustainable for our whole species.
Hunting predators: Maybe. It's bad for biodiversity, but it does keep our livestock and human populations safe. However, we're not a natural predator of predators. If you want to trust nature, the systems will balance themselves (we're not guaranteed to like the results though).
Domestic oil drilling: It really depends on where. Also, our appetite for oil is such that we can't come close to meeting our needs for a long time with domestic drilling; if it's even possible that we may eventually, it'll happen far enough in the future that hopefully we'll have moved on to smarter sources of energy by then. That said, if there are areas that are not ecologically fragile where we can safely extract oil and use ot to help lessen our needs, it'd be a good idea to use them.
I have no idea where you're even going with sun cycles. The effects of variance in sun cycles are miniscule; not enough to explain any climate trends whatsoever.
On learning to tend the environment, we've learned a lot. Early ham-fisted efforts are not indicative of what we can do now, as we've learned from our mistakes.
What you posted is a mixed bag of half-truths, red herrings, and oversimplifications. Some of it's outright wrong. If you're interested, we can go over it bit-by-bit.
They need to understand that it does not suggest high amounts of clue when they tell us CO2 is part of nature as if that were some kind of an argument. Proportions are important.
That might be move believable if we didn't have countless counterexamples of towns with most of their businesses with "NO COLOUREDS" in their windows.
Of course, if it wern't a concern, the legislation wouldn't be necessary and would be just like a law saying that people need to breathe. :)
Most libertarians I know think that business owners should be free to, say, only serve white people.
The question in science has always been, "does it have predictive power?"
On this I'm serious. I reject the concept of owning ideas or data.
Abolishing IP is what's right. Simple as that.
I am confident that there are many people I could tutor up to being able to program reasonably given a year. Doing this in a large classroom sounds really difficult, but I won't discount the possibility that someone managed to come up with enough of a condensed curriculum that they can do this for a fair number of people, at least enough that they can fill a number of low-to-mid-level programming jobs. They might not understand a lot of the theory, but the one thing we know about the future is that there will be a need for a lot of programmers at various skill levels.
Kind of like H.P. Lovecraft, really. Imaginative world, writing is meh.
It's amusing that Tolkien was nominated by CS Lewis, another person whose religious commitments made his work far more shallow and one-dimensional than it could've been.
Which matters? Ideally your matters help choose your party.
If this is right, then we IP Abolitionists just need to go up against impossibly wealthy entrenched interests to get the legal system fixed. Easy, right?
Ron Paul isn't a paleoconservative. He's a libertarian.
Americans Elect's board is primarily staffed by the far right. This is simply an effort to split the liberal vote. Go look it up; it's pretty easy to find that Americans Elect's board alone makes it untrustworthy.
Not that finding the center between Dems and Republicans is worthwhile anyhow.
I suspect you haven't looked into how the OLPC foundation has done this enough, WRT the language.
There was also value in the OLPC foundation getting the laptops to kids a lot earlier than now.
You could do that, but the OLPCs still provide a much better learning environment, and the community around them has done a much better job at providing minority language support (or making it easy to roll one's own).
There are plenty of very low-end chinese tablets that are under $99. They're typically terribly slow, but you can get them.
Given how they handled the whole sexism scandal, if I were running a PR firm I'd stay away from Penny Arcade.
(the original comic was fine, but the way they handled the criticism was just bloody stupid)
I don't even know what Moto-Blur is. I don't have it, I've never seen it, and I don't think it's part of the Android platform. I'm guessing it's a Motorola customisation? With iOS, you're missing big parts of the core platform. The last I looked, Darwin wasn't close to being a complete OSX either. (That said, it's good that Apple is shipping some of that stuff; better than nothing). Darwin is a complete and usable OS (I know, I've installed it a few times), but it's hardly an opensource iOS/OSX, and unlike with the Android sources, it's not usable as a platform tour/development target. Android really is opensource.
You may have a point on ObjC. I don't think it's a big one; it's not like there are still nib files (I used to be a NeXTStep developer ages ago) users/devs can still dig their hands into, but the OpenStep frameworks and some of the language infrastructure around it are pretty aimed towards extension.
I would at least be considerably more cautious with how you do your advocacy; it looks to me like you're jumping on reasonably small things and inflating them until they burst, with little regard for the facts. Apple has done a fantastic job with getting the APIs right for development (mainly because when they were acquired by NeXT (haha), they picked up that coding culture). They're still the bad old apple when it comes to the walled-garden mentality, the ridiculous lawsuit mentality, and the our-users-don't-deserve-options-UI folk. They don't do everything right, but that doesn't mean they do nothing right.
Personally, I'd like them to mostly leave their products the same but be a lot more open with their platform strategy.
Is the bulk of your claim that if you install Darwin on your phone, you essentially have a mostly-working iOS install, and that Objective-C is better than Java?
As far as I know, the first is not true, and the second is at least a questionable claim, given that language preferences vary so much.
Android may not be the best imaginable mobile OS, but it's certainly a lot more open than iOS.
How do they differ from a political blogger or news-analysis firm? Does Stratfor have an agenda? (Note that I am not saying they don't, but I seriously have never heard of Stratfor pushing one)
There are a fair number of us who do political blogging/analysis as a hobby, sometimes bringing in political philosophy. There are also some fantastic current events journals like Far Eastern Affairs. Is Stratfor more like them or more like the people at the Heritage Foundation (which usually strikes me as pretty sinister)?
I don't know if Anonymous actually did this or not, and Stratfor doesn't seem obviously bad. Need more information!