The one group that seems to be more highly associated with ID in my personal experience (for what it's worth) is Born Again Christians.
"Born Again" is not a denomination, Christian sect, or subgroup within Christinity. It is the state of being a Christian, according to the mainstream interpretation of the passage that mentions this phrase. You would be hard-pressed to find a Christian who, after looking at that passage would not describe themselves as born again.
Oh, well that's true. I read 'em when I was 12. But some parents are protective of their children, and some children aren't ready for that stuff...and there are *some* of those books that are probably written for young adults. But you can't really be sure until you've read them.
PG-13 is called that for a reason. It doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of 8 year olds who can't handle it.:)
Personally, though at this point I've read hundreds of thousands of pages, I still can't stand Bradbury. I've read stuff written by 10th graders that's better. He's one of the worst writers I've ever read. I can't get through more than a chapter of a Bradbury story before I want to put it down. It's like reading the phone book.
The only one of those who I actually like to read regularly is Heinlein. I don't really read Asimov either, but that's because his books seem so soulless, which is more of a personal thing.
I was reading the old, hard sci-fi mostly before my tenth birthday
You are fortunate that you were able to move past that, and didn't get turned off to reading right then. I read the entire short story section of the library near where I lived by then, and most of the young adult novels. That covers 1001 Arabian nights, all the greek myths, and a lot of the works of a lot of authors. By ten I was reading 150 or so pages a week.
Please, please please, if you want to think of the children, don't underestimate them.
This isn't about underestimating. You don't get someone excited about Rock 'n Roll by having them listen to a 30 year-old vinyl album of the Monkeys playing in concert, and you don't get someone interested in Sci-Fi by showing them authors who can't write. In either case, the fidelity and quality of work just isn't there.
Terry Pratchett's books are funny, but they tend to spoof the politics and happenings of the US and the UK, so your kids might not grasp all the jokes.
You're just thinking of the Discworld, which isn't even Sci-Fi. Then there's the Diggers and the Johnny Maxwell trilogy, both of which are actually Sci-Fi series written for children. Kids should be able to get those jokes. They have lessons in them, too. It's a complete package. Pratchett also happens to be an amazing writer. His command of language, plotlines, and character development are a wonder to behold. People have written doctorate theses examining the art that is Terry Pratchett's work. So he's definitely a good choice.
Anne McCaffery has some good ones
You're reading them as an adult, and you're glossing over things. Her novels are definitely PG-13, or possible R rated. She makes sex and death an everyday part of her novels, and not the Judy Bloom way. Characters are mating with/killing other characters, and she's describing how it makes them feel, which makes it much more real than seeing random redshirt die in Star Trek, or Kirk sleep with the green chick.
CS Lewis' Space Trilogy is excellent, though it gets pretty violent, and might be a bit advanced for pre-teens.
Definitely. The language is too complex for most. It's also highly Christian. As in, the protagonist is a Christian fighting the forces of Satan with the aid of angels. And this isn't all symbolic/easy to overlook like it is with the Chronicles of Narnia. So if you're hostile to Christianity, don't have them read it. If, however, you're not, it's a really good read. One of the first sci-fi novels written where you actually end up getting to know what the characters are *feeling*.
Which is a problem with the early works of the genre as a whole (i.e., pre-1960 or so). Start with people who actually write well to get them hooked on reading. Sadly, quite a few of the classics - Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Wells - are terrible writers. They have excellent ideas from the broad "wouldn't this make a good story?" sense, but their command of language, plot development, and characters aren't as vivid as many of their counterparts of the times they wrote. That was just the way that sci-fi was. Most important of these is the characters. The timid reader has to become attached to them early on in the story so that he'll keep reading.
Later, once they're voracious readers, they can take on the guys who have great ideas but don't write well. They won't need to constantly be fed the writing equivalent of high definition to want to "view" it.
And for that reason, I definitely like the parent. These writers he has chosen are really good at writing to grab the readers and hold their attention.
Bearing that in mind, I have two more authors to add:
David Eddings - he's known for his endearing characters. Unfortunately, I don't think he's ever strayed from writing fantasy. The important poitn is that you can basically start with "you liked Harry Potter? Why don't you read this..." IMHO, going from Harry Potter books to David Eddings is a fairly natural progression. Once you've absorbed those, you're pretty well prepared to move into heavier stuff.
Alan Dean Foster - writes, among other things, the "Pip and Flinx" novels. While he's not the greatest writer in the world, Flinx is a young boy at the start, and very well developed as a character. Young readers will identify with the feelings and attitudes that Flinx goes through as he transitions into someone remarkable.
old paintings worthless because we have high definition movies now
Not worthless, but worth less. Because now they're only works of art. They used to be one of the main forms of entertainment that people had.
HD movies competes with them in that way.
Obviously, if people could reproduce the sound of strats, then they would move from "amazing sounding instruments with sound that can't be reproduced AND amazing piece of art" to just "amazing piece of art"...which isn't as valuable.
Now, admittedly, what actually happens is that it works one way in Konqueror/Safari, one way in Opera/Firefox/IE7, and a different way IE4-6, but the big, important point is that even in 2000 you could basically use a snippet to get your video to work everywhere that embedded video was supported.
Here's the kicker for that, by the way: the *exact same kind of snippet* is needed to get flash to play everywhere.
So if you consider flash universal, then embedded video is as well.
I've never seen ANY embedded video player that
Of course not. You don't embed a player. You embed a video. Its up to the user to assign a player to their videos, just as its their job to install flash.
Nobody ever goes to youtube, or sees their ads in this instance
But youtube has the *potential* to put ads in there. They've also got their own internal ad - the little thing that says "youtube" on it. They're buying brand recognition that way, which is worth money.... and nearly EVERY youtube video I watch comes this way. If your theory were true, they'd have blocked this long ago.
If your theory (that it's rubbish) was true, then we would still be using the universal browser embedding thing that we've already got.
When youtube came out, embedding movies was *already* possible in every existing browser. Further, performance for embedded players *far* exceeds what flash is capable of. Quite simply, it is a superior way to view videos. And yet, its so rarely done that the GP (and probably the parent) think that its a missing feature from existing browsers.
I can think of lots of other scientific books I like better and might put on my list, of course. Not a single one places the kind of emphasis on cosmology or unified theory authors.
The parent, GP, and GGP are all pretty much confined to these areas. Why does popular science book = book about those things?
Perhaps that's the root of the problem. These things are areas science delving into realms of speculation that we can't verify or test, and for the most part, can't apply to anything, and that requires highly advanced training to really understand the concepts (rather than just the facts that people tell you). Unusable knowledge isn't exactly the most gratifying knowledge to be had.
Perhaps we need to find a way to promote the more attainable bits of knowledge.
First measure same melody: Twinkle Twinkle Baa Baa Black Sheep
Second measure different: Little Star Have you any wool?
Lets just speed this up: 3-6 same 7-8 different
And Baa Baa Black sheep ends, while Twinkle Twinkle goes on for another four measures.
When you're sticking songs with half an octave of range with no jumps of more than a third, and you're only doing major chords (because these things make it easy to learn them), you don't have a lot of options for the melody.
Things are going to sound the same. You'd be surprised at how easy it is to pick apart most rock songs as being repeats of other songs. (How many are Pachelbel's canon now? 15 or 20?)
I would second that, except that instead of that, you should pass it out to friends. In fact, I suggest putting them all on a big shelf on your wall.
You can have friends come over, and starting with 100 harddrives, just take one down, pass it around, and before too long you'll have 99 harddrives on the wall.
I'm not willing to make the claim that Firefox 3 is faster than any version of Opera because: 1) That's very hard to test 2) I haven't run the test, and it isn't that important to me that I do so.
I'm willing to concede that Firefox is probably faster; that many people would believe such a statement without hard facts just by trying out both of them. Certainly Opera's marketing department would make, and continues to make such a claim about their own browser (their motto is "Fastest Browser on Earth").
Now: You seem to imply that all this speed talk is about marketing and stuff, while the truth is that both teams of programmers have spent countless hours improving their codebases. Your comment is a disservice to all those programmers.
I'm just not seeing how you're reaching this conclusion.
Near as I can figure, this is your logic: 1) Premise: I'm not willing to fully commit to the claim that Firefox is faster. Opera's marketing department is willing to make such a claim about their own browser. 2) Because I have not agreed to an answer but the marketing department of Opera has, I believe the question of speed is one of marketing (false, and I'm not sure how you got from step one to step two). 3) Because Marketing departments are only there to advertise (false), what they say does not reflect upon the work done by their programmers (also false), so if you talk about arguing with the marketing department, then you're arguing the merits of the marketing, not the quality of the product (would be true if the beginning parts of this statement were).
Needless to say, there are lots of holes in your logic. You may want to rethink it.
Minimo (based on the ff3 tree) is faster, supports more javascript, and has a smaller memory footprint than Opera does on my 400Mhz Nokia N800. Minimo runs flash better, too.
Firefox 3 is a tipping point. It is the point at which Opera's claim of greater speed is quite arguable if not entirely unfounded. Considering that speed and portability are essentially the only things that Opera has going for it, the latest version of Firefox may actually destroy Opera's market.
I know to write new code do things YOUR way is much more pleasant than maintaining old code, but where I work (for $$$), that would never be an option.
This doesn't have to do with maintaining old code. I didn't just say "old code," I said "crazy legacy code." It has to be more than just old to be worth replacing. It has to be more trouble than it's worth. Turns out that I work for money as well...and maintain old systems. Part of that is knowing when a chunk needs to be gotten rid of because it was a bad idea at the time and a better one has come along.
Just as you may think you are really smart for being able to rewrite X from scratch with your implementation
Flamebait, nothing more. I made no such claims. Not only are the off-topic, this isn't even close to a rebuttal to my arguments.
and possibly throw out stuff that you don't care about, I think to be able to understand old code and then add stuff on top of it and take ownership of it takes quite a bit of ingenuity and intelligence too.
Knowing what to throw out, what to keep, how to build on top, how to build APIs that work with it all require cleverness - raw intelligence and intuition. It is difficult for me to see how this has very much to do with my post, though. If you're working on a OSS project, you're doing these things.
The difference I'm talking about is in the quality of design & implementation. You go a lot farther (in experience, productivity, etc) when you're starting out when you work with something with high quality design and implementation rather than low.
Re:Anything else out there?
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I have a theory.
We're using X as our windowing system because it's what we have, and we need it. But I don't think anybody (or not many people) really *believe* in it.
That is to say, I doubt anybody takes a look at it and says "this is it! This is the way we should do Windowing!" And so the followup, "...and if it this thing worked, then it'd be more awesome."
What people actually say when they start looking at it looks more like this. "Okay! X.org is a good project! I think maybe I'll contribute my time to it! Hold on...what is this? Why does it have all these features that nobody cares about? Why the nonstandard build system? What's with all the crazy legacy code? This thing is way too complex for me to spend my time on, and what I learn won't transfer to any other work. I'll pick something else."
Didn't you have to take high school chemistry? What you're saying has quite a few problems:
1) That determines the rate of effusion. Molecules don't just go straight up. They bounce around. What actually happens in reality is that the force holding those molecules to the earth isn't actually enough to force it to happen. But the upward movement is going to happen slowly. You can still measure the effect that gravity has while this upward movement happens.
2) Also because it has to do with effusion, a *beam* of antiparticles in a vaccuum won't be affected by it. They're not going to bounce around and have effusion effects happen; it's going to be more like a batting practice machine - balls come out and curve, and are done the moment they hit something. This is obviously what they're going to do since antimatter is quickly eliminated in the presence of matter.
3) Even if that was a problem, it's not actually a problem at all temperatures and pressures. If you wanted to do an experiment where *normal* hydrogen didn't rise, just lower the temperature.
This is why I don't get how this could still be an issue. Digital signatures have been LEGALLY accepted for quite a long time, and yet people are still spouting this "well, it may not be legal, so..." crap. Few technologies have been so clearly given the green light as digital signatures have been.
It's more secure, more legible, and easier to store. Using them should be a no-brainer. It pretty much just comes down to fear of change, I think.
Miyazaki isn't exactly a pioneer in his field. His animation techniques are actually *more primitive* than the animation going on at Disney animation studios right now. Disney is also known for being the first guy to take serious, or famous people and cast them as cartoon stars. Miyazaki does that...by being employed by Disney.
Additionally, Disney built a theme park full of *ideas* that were basically brainstorms of how the world could be, and built them into theme parks. He reinvented how we think about cartoons, and about theme parks - he upped the standard for both *a lot*.
The "plumber and mushroom" inventor also reinvented his area. He took a company that made pinball machines and playing cards and made it into the most popular video game company in the world - beating out quite a lot of competition, and making games that were *significantly* more complex (and fun) than the competition (Had an atari, had intellivision. *yawn*). He also seriously advanced the idea that the game should not be hard because it's hard to control the character. Sounds obvious, I know, but it wasn't. It was revolutionary, and made the whole industry start producing games that were a lot more fun.
The only reason I can think that you think Miyazaki is so much better is that you value movies more than you value video games. Well, that's your choice, but doesn't change the facts.
Miyazaki didn't change the world. Disney did, and so did Shigeru Miyamoto.
So? It will raise peoples metabolism? For what purpose? Here's some conditions that occur to me that might be improved by suddenly raising metabolism: 1) depression 2) help cure (or recover from) diseases for which the body has an autoimmune response 3) Rapid weight loss (if, for example, you'll be dead within 10 days if you don't lose 30 pounds within 5 days, which I've heard can come up) 4) Blood loss recovery
It should also be noted that pretty much everything that raises metabolism also does something else. Is that something else medically beneficial to someone? Maybe.
Well, I'll have to disagree with your decision to disagree with the GP who was, in turn disagreeing with the great-GP.
The GP's claim of usage outside of a business context doesn't claim that it shouldn't be written distributed, and used in a business context, only that it should be written, distributed, and used outside a business context. These are not mutually exclusive; you are arguing against a claim that he didn't make.
Anyone disagree with my disagreement of the disagreement?
The guy at the store assured me that it would be exactly the same because they'd imprint the memories and personality usingn a special brain scanning machine.
Okay...I admit, this is from a movie. Clearly the idea of cloning our pets is the first one that's really going to sell the technology (other than the obvious - organs).
Presumably, a lot of instinctive behaviour (if not most) is genetic. So your cloned dog will be a lot more like your old one than a cloned person might be.
Of course, if you could accelerate aging, you'd getting exactly what you'd want from the cloning process if you cloned a hot babe. Beauty is only cell deep, after all.:)
Slashdot Mirror
The one group that seems to be more highly associated with ID in my personal experience (for what it's worth) is Born Again Christians.
"Born Again" is not a denomination, Christian sect, or subgroup within Christinity. It is the state of being a Christian, according to the mainstream interpretation of the passage that mentions this phrase. You would be hard-pressed to find a Christian who, after looking at that passage would not describe themselves as born again.
Oh, well that's true. I read 'em when I was 12. But some parents are protective of their children, and some children aren't ready for that stuff...and there are *some* of those books that are probably written for young adults. But you can't really be sure until you've read them.
PG-13 is called that for a reason. It doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of 8 year olds who can't handle it. :)
Personally, though at this point I've read hundreds of thousands of pages, I still can't stand Bradbury. I've read stuff written by 10th graders that's better. He's one of the worst writers I've ever read. I can't get through more than a chapter of a Bradbury story before I want to put it down. It's like reading the phone book.
The only one of those who I actually like to read regularly is Heinlein. I don't really read Asimov either, but that's because his books seem so soulless, which is more of a personal thing.
I was reading the old, hard sci-fi mostly before my tenth birthday
You are fortunate that you were able to move past that, and didn't get turned off to reading right then. I read the entire short story section of the library near where I lived by then, and most of the young adult novels. That covers 1001 Arabian nights, all the greek myths, and a lot of the works of a lot of authors. By ten I was reading 150 or so pages a week.
Please, please please, if you want to think of the children, don't underestimate them.
This isn't about underestimating. You don't get someone excited about Rock 'n Roll by having them listen to a 30 year-old vinyl album of the Monkeys playing in concert, and you don't get someone interested in Sci-Fi by showing them authors who can't write. In either case, the fidelity and quality of work just isn't there.
Terry Pratchett's books are funny, but they tend to spoof the politics and happenings of the US and the UK, so your kids might not grasp all the jokes.
You're just thinking of the Discworld, which isn't even Sci-Fi. Then there's the Diggers and the Johnny Maxwell trilogy, both of which are actually Sci-Fi series written for children. Kids should be able to get those jokes. They have lessons in them, too. It's a complete package. Pratchett also happens to be an amazing writer. His command of language, plotlines, and character development are a wonder to behold. People have written doctorate theses examining the art that is Terry Pratchett's work. So he's definitely a good choice.
Anne McCaffery has some good ones
You're reading them as an adult, and you're glossing over things. Her novels are definitely PG-13, or possible R rated. She makes sex and death an everyday part of her novels, and not the Judy Bloom way. Characters are mating with/killing other characters, and she's describing how it makes them feel, which makes it much more real than seeing random redshirt die in Star Trek, or Kirk sleep with the green chick.
CS Lewis' Space Trilogy is excellent, though it gets pretty violent, and might be a bit advanced for pre-teens.
Definitely. The language is too complex for most. It's also highly Christian. As in, the protagonist is a Christian fighting the forces of Satan with the aid of angels. And this isn't all symbolic/easy to overlook like it is with the Chronicles of Narnia. So if you're hostile to Christianity, don't have them read it. If, however, you're not, it's a really good read. One of the first sci-fi novels written where you actually end up getting to know what the characters are *feeling*.
Which is a problem with the early works of the genre as a whole (i.e., pre-1960 or so). Start with people who actually write well to get them hooked on reading. Sadly, quite a few of the classics - Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Wells - are terrible writers. They have excellent ideas from the broad "wouldn't this make a good story?" sense, but their command of language, plot development, and characters aren't as vivid as many of their counterparts of the times they wrote. That was just the way that sci-fi was. Most important of these is the characters. The timid reader has to become attached to them early on in the story so that he'll keep reading.
Later, once they're voracious readers, they can take on the guys who have great ideas but don't write well. They won't need to constantly be fed the writing equivalent of high definition to want to "view" it.
And for that reason, I definitely like the parent. These writers he has chosen are really good at writing to grab the readers and hold their attention.
Bearing that in mind, I have two more authors to add:
David Eddings - he's known for his endearing characters. Unfortunately, I don't think he's ever strayed from writing fantasy. The important poitn is that you can basically start with "you liked Harry Potter? Why don't you read this..." IMHO, going from Harry Potter books to David Eddings is a fairly natural progression. Once you've absorbed those, you're pretty well prepared to move into heavier stuff.
Alan Dean Foster - writes, among other things, the "Pip and Flinx" novels. While he's not the greatest writer in the world, Flinx is a young boy at the start, and very well developed as a character. Young readers will identify with the feelings and attitudes that Flinx goes through as he transitions into someone remarkable.
old paintings worthless because we have high definition movies now
Not worthless, but worth less. Because now they're only works of art. They used to be one of the main forms of entertainment that people had.
HD movies competes with them in that way.
Obviously, if people could reproduce the sound of strats, then they would move from "amazing sounding instruments with sound that can't be reproduced AND amazing piece of art" to just "amazing piece of art" ...which isn't as valuable.
The "object" tag is designed to work everywhere.
Now, admittedly, what actually happens is that it works one way in Konqueror/Safari, one way in Opera/Firefox/IE7, and a different way IE4-6, but the big, important point is that even in 2000 you could basically use a snippet to get your video to work everywhere that embedded video was supported.
Here's the kicker for that, by the way: the *exact same kind of snippet* is needed to get flash to play everywhere.
So if you consider flash universal, then embedded video is as well.
I've never seen ANY embedded video player that
Of course not. You don't embed a player. You embed a video. Its up to the user to assign a player to their videos, just as its their job to install flash.
Nobody ever goes to youtube, or sees their ads in this instance
But youtube has the *potential* to put ads in there. They've also got their own internal ad - the little thing that says "youtube" on it. They're buying brand recognition that way, which is worth money. ... and nearly EVERY youtube video I watch comes this way. If your theory were true, they'd have blocked this long ago.
If your theory (that it's rubbish) was true, then we would still be using the universal browser embedding thing that we've already got.
When youtube came out, embedding movies was *already* possible in every existing browser. Further, performance for embedded players *far* exceeds what flash is capable of. Quite simply, it is a superior way to view videos. And yet, its so rarely done that the GP (and probably the parent) think that its a missing feature from existing browsers.
My favorite book for understand the nature of mathematics, physics, etc. has always been Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing.
I can think of lots of other scientific books I like better and might put on my list, of course. Not a single one places the kind of emphasis on cosmology or unified theory authors.
The parent, GP, and GGP are all pretty much confined to these areas. Why does popular science book = book about those things?
Perhaps that's the root of the problem. These things are areas science delving into realms of speculation that we can't verify or test, and for the most part, can't apply to anything, and that requires highly advanced training to really understand the concepts (rather than just the facts that people tell you). Unusable knowledge isn't exactly the most gratifying knowledge to be had.
Perhaps we need to find a way to promote the more attainable bits of knowledge.
Given that his first model of a geodesic dome collapsed under its own weight...
As did the second. The third one burned down, fell over, and then collapsed under its own weight.
But the fourth one stayed up, and that's what we have now: the strongest dome in all England.
First measure same melody:
Twinkle Twinkle
Baa Baa Black Sheep
Second measure different:
Little Star
Have you any wool?
Lets just speed this up:
3-6 same
7-8 different
And Baa Baa Black sheep ends, while Twinkle Twinkle goes on for another four measures.
When you're sticking songs with half an octave of range with no jumps of more than a third, and you're only doing major chords (because these things make it easy to learn them), you don't have a lot of options for the melody.
Things are going to sound the same. You'd be surprised at how easy it is to pick apart most rock songs as being repeats of other songs. (How many are Pachelbel's canon now? 15 or 20?)
I would second that, except that instead of that, you should pass it out to friends. In fact, I suggest putting them all on a big shelf on your wall.
You can have friends come over, and starting with 100 harddrives, just take one down, pass it around, and before too long you'll have 99 harddrives on the wall.
Why does this sound familiar? Hmm...
I'm not willing to make the claim that Firefox 3 is faster than any version of Opera because:
1) That's very hard to test
2) I haven't run the test, and it isn't that important to me that I do so.
I'm willing to concede that Firefox is probably faster; that many people would believe such a statement without hard facts just by trying out both of them. Certainly Opera's marketing department would make, and continues to make such a claim about their own browser (their motto is "Fastest Browser on Earth").
Now: You seem to imply that all this speed talk is about marketing and stuff, while the truth is that both teams of programmers have spent countless hours improving their codebases. Your comment is a disservice to all those programmers.
I'm just not seeing how you're reaching this conclusion.
Near as I can figure, this is your logic:
1) Premise: I'm not willing to fully commit to the claim that Firefox is faster. Opera's marketing department is willing to make such a claim about their own browser.
2) Because I have not agreed to an answer but the marketing department of Opera has, I believe the question of speed is one of marketing (false, and I'm not sure how you got from step one to step two).
3) Because Marketing departments are only there to advertise (false), what they say does not reflect upon the work done by their programmers (also false), so if you talk about arguing with the marketing department, then you're arguing the merits of the marketing, not the quality of the product (would be true if the beginning parts of this statement were).
Needless to say, there are lots of holes in your logic. You may want to rethink it.
Minimo (based on the ff3 tree) is faster, supports more javascript, and has a smaller memory footprint than Opera does on my 400Mhz Nokia N800. Minimo runs flash better, too.
Firefox 3 is a tipping point. It is the point at which Opera's claim of greater speed is quite arguable if not entirely unfounded. Considering that speed and portability are essentially the only things that Opera has going for it, the latest version of Firefox may actually destroy Opera's market.
I know to write new code do things YOUR way is much more pleasant than maintaining old code, but where I work (for $$$), that would never be an option.
This doesn't have to do with maintaining old code. I didn't just say "old code," I said "crazy legacy code." It has to be more than just old to be worth replacing. It has to be more trouble than it's worth. Turns out that I work for money as well...and maintain old systems. Part of that is knowing when a chunk needs to be gotten rid of because it was a bad idea at the time and a better one has come along.
Just as you may think you are really smart for being able to rewrite X from scratch with your implementation
Flamebait, nothing more. I made no such claims. Not only are the off-topic, this isn't even close to a rebuttal to my arguments.
and possibly throw out stuff that you don't care about, I think to be able to understand old code and then add stuff on top of it and take ownership of it takes quite a bit of ingenuity and intelligence too.
Knowing what to throw out, what to keep, how to build on top, how to build APIs that work with it all require cleverness - raw intelligence and intuition. It is difficult for me to see how this has very much to do with my post, though. If you're working on a OSS project, you're doing these things.
The difference I'm talking about is in the quality of design & implementation. You go a lot farther (in experience, productivity, etc) when you're starting out when you work with something with high quality design and implementation rather than low.
I have a theory.
We're using X as our windowing system because it's what we have, and we need it. But I don't think anybody (or not many people) really *believe* in it.
That is to say, I doubt anybody takes a look at it and says "this is it! This is the way we should do Windowing!" And so the followup, "...and if it this thing worked, then it'd be more awesome."
What people actually say when they start looking at it looks more like this.
"Okay! X.org is a good project! I think maybe I'll contribute my time to it! Hold on...what is this? Why does it have all these features that nobody cares about? Why the nonstandard build system? What's with all the crazy legacy code? This thing is way too complex for me to spend my time on, and what I learn won't transfer to any other work. I'll pick something else."
Yes, they do.
Which is cheesy awesome.
Didn't you have to take high school chemistry? What you're saying has quite a few problems:
1) That determines the rate of effusion. Molecules don't just go straight up. They bounce around. What actually happens in reality is that the force holding those molecules to the earth isn't actually enough to force it to happen. But the upward movement is going to happen slowly. You can still measure the effect that gravity has while this upward movement happens.
2) Also because it has to do with effusion, a *beam* of antiparticles in a vaccuum won't be affected by it. They're not going to bounce around and have effusion effects happen; it's going to be more like a batting practice machine - balls come out and curve, and are done the moment they hit something. This is obviously what they're going to do since antimatter is quickly eliminated in the presence of matter.
3) Even if that was a problem, it's not actually a problem at all temperatures and pressures. If you wanted to do an experiment where *normal* hydrogen didn't rise, just lower the temperature.
So you convert from Digital (fax) to analog (paper) back to digital (scan it in)?
And you do the same thing with e-mail, even when you receive documents in the #1 digital archival storage format?
Sounds like your document management policy is very broken.
There is no precedent saying that an e-mailed document in digital form is.
There's an actual law instead.
This is why I don't get how this could still be an issue. Digital signatures have been LEGALLY accepted for quite a long time, and yet people are still spouting this "well, it may not be legal, so..." crap. Few technologies have been so clearly given the green light as digital signatures have been.
It's more secure, more legible, and easier to store. Using them should be a no-brainer. It pretty much just comes down to fear of change, I think.
...or unless you think that "for free" means "not for money" rather than "for no reason," or "without getting something from it."
I tend to think that's what it means, and that this is the standard usage of the expression.
Okay, I'm done arguing semantics. I feel a little retarded now.
Miyazaki isn't exactly a pioneer in his field. His animation techniques are actually *more primitive* than the animation going on at Disney animation studios right now. Disney is also known for being the first guy to take serious, or famous people and cast them as cartoon stars. Miyazaki does that...by being employed by Disney.
Additionally, Disney built a theme park full of *ideas* that were basically brainstorms of how the world could be, and built them into theme parks. He reinvented how we think about cartoons, and about theme parks - he upped the standard for both *a lot*.
The "plumber and mushroom" inventor also reinvented his area. He took a company that made pinball machines and playing cards and made it into the most popular video game company in the world - beating out quite a lot of competition, and making games that were *significantly* more complex (and fun) than the competition (Had an atari, had intellivision. *yawn*). He also seriously advanced the idea that the game should not be hard because it's hard to control the character. Sounds obvious, I know, but it wasn't. It was revolutionary, and made the whole industry start producing games that were a lot more fun.
The only reason I can think that you think Miyazaki is so much better is that you value movies more than you value video games. Well, that's your choice, but doesn't change the facts.
Miyazaki didn't change the world. Disney did, and so did Shigeru Miyamoto.
1) Depends on the cause of the depression. Its sometimes linked to metabolism in some ways.
3) Yeah...but sometimes every calorie counts.
So? It will raise peoples metabolism? For what purpose?
Here's some conditions that occur to me that might be improved by suddenly raising metabolism:
1) depression
2) help cure (or recover from) diseases for which the body has an autoimmune response
3) Rapid weight loss (if, for example, you'll be dead within 10 days if you don't lose 30 pounds within 5 days, which I've heard can come up)
4) Blood loss recovery
It should also be noted that pretty much everything that raises metabolism also does something else. Is that something else medically beneficial to someone? Maybe.
Well, I'll have to disagree with your decision to disagree with the GP who was, in turn disagreeing with the great-GP.
The GP's claim of usage outside of a business context doesn't claim that it shouldn't be written distributed, and used in a business context, only that it should be written, distributed, and used outside a business context. These are not mutually exclusive; you are arguing against a claim that he didn't make.
Anyone disagree with my disagreement of the disagreement?
The guy at the store assured me that it would be exactly the same because they'd imprint the memories and personality usingn a special brain scanning machine.
:)
Have you seen the commercial?
Okay...I admit, this is from a movie. Clearly the idea of cloning our pets is the first one that's really going to sell the technology (other than the obvious - organs).
Presumably, a lot of instinctive behaviour (if not most) is genetic. So your cloned dog will be a lot more like your old one than a cloned person might be.
Of course, if you could accelerate aging, you'd getting exactly what you'd want from the cloning process if you cloned a hot babe. Beauty is only cell deep, after all.