Konqueror/Safari should NOT use the Gecko engine.
on
Firefox 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Gah! That sounds like an abysmally bad idea. For all its other flaws, XUL is the very worst thing about Mozilla.
Making interfaces consistent throughout applications, across different platforms, is exactly backward. Interface is a lot of what a platform is, and needs to be consistent throughout the platform, across all of its applications. Inter-application consistency is more important than intra-application consistency.
Deciding that your application is more important than the platform is the hubris which causes people, quite correctly, to ignore your application.
more numerology and omens
on
Don't Read My Lips
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is about as meaningful as correlating election success with sports term performance, combined length of last names, weather, or astrology.
43 presidential elections (much less the 11 since 1960) are just not enough data points from which to extract any remotely significant analysis.
I'm sure the Iraqis would much rather be threatened, beat, tortured, gassed, thrown out of tall buildings, have their children molested in front of them...
Good point, I guess the US is only doing four of these six to them. Pax Americana!
As TFA notes: this is 100,000 deaths above the death rate for a previous pre-war period, and; the most common cause of these deaths was airstrikes.
So unless you're suggesting that their countrymen have an extensive air force that they'd been planning on using regardless of the US's invasion, no, it's pretty accurate to characterize these deaths as being the result of American acts.
Most macs will run their fans at variable speeds to suit how much heat the system is throwing at that moment. So even if the machine were not perceptibly slow, it'd be unusually loud.
One or more of the proscribed missiles filled with conventional explosives and launched at Kuwait or Saudi Arabia certainly would fill Freeh's definition of WMD, as it would have destructive capacity to overwhelm local responders more than the OK City bombing.
Yeah, Freeh was also the same charming gentleman who was so insistent upon defining cryptography as a munition and one of Steve Jackson's board games as a "training manual for hackers." You'd be hard pressed to find anyone more prone to hysterical up-defining of threats.
In my modest experience, roleplaying is essentially a mental sport, and is good and bad in they ways other sports are.
You're exercising your abilities in an artificial context, for the sheer joy of doing so. The rules are silly, and arbitrary, and not the real point. Neither one of them is "real", neither one has any significance outside the game, but they can be diverting pastimes.
And, most importantly: people who dress up in special clothes for either one are unforgivable dorks who must be severely ostracized.
Building it yourself is a very different proposition. You've paid less in dollars, but more in the requisite time, knowledge, effort, tools, parts acquisition, and additional responsibility for its functioning.
Which might very well be a worthwhile deal for you, nothing wrong with that. But it's not really meaningful to compare just the price in dollars for these two systems and pretend that the other costs don't exist.
Or, ask them about the difference in reporting between the Abu prison and the beheading of Nick Berg and other hostages by terrorists. Hint--the first got front page after front page, day after day, long after the story was dead. The other didn't.
Trying to just respond to this one stroke of your broad brush: the fact that some Iraqis are killing some of the invaders of their country is not really surprising news. It was certainly predictable even before we invaded that such things would happen, and it's happened over a thousand times since. The fact that this one person was killed in a more gruesome than usual manner is saddening, but it's not really categorically different than the thousand other Americans whose lives Bush has chosen to throw away on a political stunt, and doesn't demand vastly more news coverage.
On the other hand, the news that America is engaging in torture and rape should be astounding and horrifying news to Americans. Even if one assigns equal moral weight to both acts, we have to scrutinize our own actions more carefully and take direct responsibility for them. The idea that the American government feels authorized to engage in such brutality and then to systematically conceal its wrongdoing places a burden squarely on all of our shoulders to try and atone for this crime which we have--even if only with our tax dollars--supported.
Which is part of why this story is not yet "dead". We have heard from members of the Senate that there are many more photographs and much more video than have been published, detailing even more severe abuses. And as long as this documentation is still being kept secret, the government clearly does not understand that the only acceptable solution to bad press is not to cover up the evidence; it is to not commit such despicable acts in the first place.
I think there's another important possibility: that the slashdot crowd is significantly anti-Bush. No, that's not the same thing as being pro-Kerry, pro-Democrat, or pro-Liberal, though of course some people will be those things as well.
So far as I've ever been able to determine, Bush is so sodding incompetent that I would expect the range of anti-Bush people to approximate "everyone". Even if you happen to have exactly the same set of goals, values, and priorities which Bush claims, I would imagine that you'd at least want a remotely intelligent and competent person to pursue them.
Yeah, funny how the CIA does say that these days. Funny mostly because it's such a sharp departure from their previous claims.
The only clearly documented case of the use of chemical weapons inside Iraq was in Halabja in 1988. Recall that this was in the midst of the Iran/Iraq war, with the US backing its boy Hussein--as it continued to do for three years afterward. At the time, it was widely speculated that the US had actually done the chemical bombing; certainly it was unquestioned that the US was the supplier of any chemical munitions Iraq might have had.
The US, on the other hand, claimed that the bombing had been done by Iran, and that Iraq was the innocent victim of this act. It has only become recently fashionable for the CIA to claim that the bombing was in fact done by Iraq, and was such an atrocity that we have sudden need to conquer them, despite our defense of and continued alliance with them for years after the event.
Aside from any questions about the morality of these actions, the important lesson here is that the United States government is approximately the least trustworthy source on Earth about Iraq's possession and use of chemical weapons.
This would only improve things for the people that want a small number of highly populated areas to control the national agenda. This is exactly what the electoral college system was designed to prevent in the first place. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
We need both this AND the electoral college. Real voter choice without the country being ruled by Los Angeles and New York City.
Los Angeles and New York would only control the nation to the degree that they're a majority. Which is kind of the way democracy is supposed to work: rule by humans, not by acres.
Well, no, in the purest sense a democracy has no leaders, and the populace directly decides every issue. The US is a democratic republic because it still has leaders, but they are democratically chosen[sic].
While removing the layer of abstraction that the Electoral College represents would improve things somewhat, the more fundamental problem is using a plurality vote in the first place.
Plurality voting encourages strategic (as opposed to honest) voting, and thus does a terrible job of representing the genuine desires of the electorate. A Borda/Condorcet system or approval voting system would allow people to honestly portray their preferences without ever needing to be concerned about "throwing away" their votes.
[speaking of the Electoral College] I like the Republic/Federal system that we use, as opposed to actual Democracy. I am firmly against the Tyranny of the Majority that Democracy can cause (watch what happens in Iraq if they use an actual Democracy), and I believe that the minorities need representation (be they minorities of race, gender, or geography).
Interesting. So you believe that the votes of men should count very slightly more than those of women? That the votes of african americans should be weighted five times as heavily as those of caucasian voters?
Or perhaps we could just shortcut this logic by saying that people who vote for a losing candidate are clearly a minority, and their votes should be up-weighted however far is required for every candidate to receive exactly the same percentage of the adjusted vote?
And if you don't believe that any of those fundamental or self-chosen traits are important enough to do something as sweeping as weighting votes unevenly, why do you believe that the picayune issue of the average residential density of your state is?
I seem to agree with Moore on more things than not. Certainly I disagree with largely the same set of things that he does.
But despite that, he's not a source of reality, or journalistic integrity, or informative presentation. Even if many of the things he's saying are true, the methods he uses to say them are pretty reliably dishonest.
Modulo the actual views being expressed, he's essentially Ann Coulter. They're both perfectly willing to resort to deceptive misrepresentation and shrill name-calling to support their opinions. And just as I would hope that even theocratic warmongers would be ashamed of Ann Coulter, so I'd suggest that Moore's a pretty poor paragon.
So even if you agree with his overall goals, there's not much point in directing people to him in particular. Direct people to sources which make those same points in an honest and rational manner, and you'll win more converts.
That may be why, but it's a pretty silly reason. "Conservative" or "Republican" are hardly even meaningful descriptors, and they're certainly not representative of a completely homogenous hivemind that permits no dissent within the ranks. Someone can be quite reasonably called either of those while opposing Bush in particular, just as Zel Miller is still a Democrat despite his opposition to Kerry.
(In fact, Bush's stances on the majority of issues are at odds with the classic definition of "conservatism". His beliefs in wildly unchecked government spending, constant foreign adventurism, and invasive social policy mean that one almost has to oppose him to have any real claim to the conservative label.)
Unfortunately, an opposition to civil rights for gay Americans is widespread throughout both parties. I lost a huge amount of interest in this presidential election when I learned that every single Democratic primary candidate was opposed to legalized gay marriage. (Dean eventually signed the legalizing bill that the Vermont senate sent him, but only reluctantly and after protest.)
All of the distasteful stances on sexuality that you attribute to Republicans are only slightly less pervasive among Democrats. Which essentially means that I can't imagine strongly supporting any politician at the state or federal level.
Slashdot Mirror
Gah! That sounds like an abysmally bad idea. For all its other flaws, XUL is the very worst thing about Mozilla.
Making interfaces consistent throughout applications, across different platforms, is exactly backward. Interface is a lot of what a platform is, and needs to be consistent throughout the platform, across all of its applications. Inter-application consistency is more important than intra-application consistency.
Deciding that your application is more important than the platform is the hubris which causes people, quite correctly, to ignore your application.
This is about as meaningful as correlating election success with sports term performance, combined length of last names, weather, or astrology.
43 presidential elections (much less the 11 since 1960) are just not enough data points from which to extract any remotely significant analysis.
Good point, I guess the US is only doing four of these six to them. Pax Americana!
As TFA article notes: these were 100,000ish deaths above the similar pre-invasion period, and; the most common cause of these deaths was airstrikes.
As TFA notes: this is 100,000 deaths above the death rate for a previous pre-war period, and; the most common cause of these deaths was airstrikes.
So unless you're suggesting that their countrymen have an extensive air force that they'd been planning on using regardless of the US's invasion, no, it's pretty accurate to characterize these deaths as being the result of American acts.
Most macs will run their fans at variable speeds to suit how much heat the system is throwing at that moment. So even if the machine were not perceptibly slow, it'd be unusually loud.
$0 with every mac.
The other side of assuming citizens innocent until they're proven guilty is assuming governments guilty until they're proven innocent.
In my modest experience, roleplaying is essentially a mental sport, and is good and bad in they ways other sports are.
You're exercising your abilities in an artificial context, for the sheer joy of doing so. The rules are silly, and arbitrary, and not the real point. Neither one of them is "real", neither one has any significance outside the game, but they can be diverting pastimes.
And, most importantly: people who dress up in special clothes for either one are unforgivable dorks who must be severely ostracized.
Building it yourself is a very different proposition. You've paid less in dollars, but more in the requisite time, knowledge, effort, tools, parts acquisition, and additional responsibility for its functioning.
Which might very well be a worthwhile deal for you, nothing wrong with that. But it's not really meaningful to compare just the price in dollars for these two systems and pretend that the other costs don't exist.
On the other hand, the news that America is engaging in torture and rape should be astounding and horrifying news to Americans. Even if one assigns equal moral weight to both acts, we have to scrutinize our own actions more carefully and take direct responsibility for them. The idea that the American government feels authorized to engage in such brutality and then to systematically conceal its wrongdoing places a burden squarely on all of our shoulders to try and atone for this crime which we have--even if only with our tax dollars--supported.
Which is part of why this story is not yet "dead". We have heard from members of the Senate that there are many more photographs and much more video than have been published, detailing even more severe abuses. And as long as this documentation is still being kept secret, the government clearly does not understand that the only acceptable solution to bad press is not to cover up the evidence; it is to not commit such despicable acts in the first place.
I think there's another important possibility: that the slashdot crowd is significantly anti-Bush. No, that's not the same thing as being pro-Kerry, pro-Democrat, or pro-Liberal, though of course some people will be those things as well.
So far as I've ever been able to determine, Bush is so sodding incompetent that I would expect the range of anti-Bush people to approximate "everyone". Even if you happen to have exactly the same set of goals, values, and priorities which Bush claims, I would imagine that you'd at least want a remotely intelligent and competent person to pursue them.
The only clearly documented case of the use of chemical weapons inside Iraq was in Halabja in 1988. Recall that this was in the midst of the Iran/Iraq war, with the US backing its boy Hussein--as it continued to do for three years afterward. At the time, it was widely speculated that the US had actually done the chemical bombing; certainly it was unquestioned that the US was the supplier of any chemical munitions Iraq might have had.
The US, on the other hand, claimed that the bombing had been done by Iran, and that Iraq was the innocent victim of this act. It has only become recently fashionable for the CIA to claim that the bombing was in fact done by Iraq, and was such an atrocity that we have sudden need to conquer them, despite our defense of and continued alliance with them for years after the event.
Aside from any questions about the morality of these actions, the important lesson here is that the United States government is approximately the least trustworthy source on Earth about Iraq's possession and use of chemical weapons.
"The difference between America and England is that the English think 100 miles is a long distance and the Americans think 100 years is a long time."
These arguments all seem to come to, "but then we'd have to pay attention to how people actually voted!"
I'm having a very hard time finding this to be a deterrent.
Plurality voting encourages strategic (as opposed to honest) voting, and thus does a terrible job of representing the genuine desires of the electorate. A Borda/Condorcet system or approval voting system would allow people to honestly portray their preferences without ever needing to be concerned about "throwing away" their votes.
Thank you, Donald.
Say, don't you have a couple of occupations to be managing?
Or perhaps we could just shortcut this logic by saying that people who vote for a losing candidate are clearly a minority, and their votes should be up-weighted however far is required for every candidate to receive exactly the same percentage of the adjusted vote?
And if you don't believe that any of those fundamental or self-chosen traits are important enough to do something as sweeping as weighting votes unevenly, why do you believe that the picayune issue of the average residential density of your state is?
Or, as it was so eloquently put by the ever-brilliant get your war on...
But despite that, he's not a source of reality, or journalistic integrity, or informative presentation. Even if many of the things he's saying are true, the methods he uses to say them are pretty reliably dishonest.
Modulo the actual views being expressed, he's essentially Ann Coulter. They're both perfectly willing to resort to deceptive misrepresentation and shrill name-calling to support their opinions. And just as I would hope that even theocratic warmongers would be ashamed of Ann Coulter, so I'd suggest that Moore's a pretty poor paragon.
So even if you agree with his overall goals, there's not much point in directing people to him in particular. Direct people to sources which make those same points in an honest and rational manner, and you'll win more converts.
That may be why, but it's a pretty silly reason. "Conservative" or "Republican" are hardly even meaningful descriptors, and they're certainly not representative of a completely homogenous hivemind that permits no dissent within the ranks. Someone can be quite reasonably called either of those while opposing Bush in particular, just as Zel Miller is still a Democrat despite his opposition to Kerry.
(In fact, Bush's stances on the majority of issues are at odds with the classic definition of "conservatism". His beliefs in wildly unchecked government spending, constant foreign adventurism, and invasive social policy mean that one almost has to oppose him to have any real claim to the conservative label.)
All of the distasteful stances on sexuality that you attribute to Republicans are only slightly less pervasive among Democrats. Which essentially means that I can't imagine strongly supporting any politician at the state or federal level.