I'm a Chromium developer. It's not clear from your blog post: are the majority of the bugs you're complaining about things that are still broken on the WebKit trunk? Or things that you have to hack around because of the number of out-of-date WebKit-based UAs? If the former, are there bugs on file at bugs.webkit.org?
I ask this because we spend a lot of time fixing bugs in each release, and if there are major problems we're missing, then I'd like to ensure they get triaged and investigated properly. But the complaint you write here isn't really actionable, because it's short on details.
Feel free to ping me directly -- pkasting@google.com -- and I will try to ensure someone takes a look at your issues.
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.
Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.
Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.
Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.
Few restrictions
In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not.
The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced.
Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.
But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.
Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue.
Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society.
Low crime
But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated.
Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.
It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.
Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.
From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.
This is the difference between the traditional concepts of "college" and "trade school". A college education is supposed to include learning in a wide array of subjects. If you don't want a liberal arts education, you shouldn't be at a school that provides (requires) one.
A "liberal arts" institution can be defined as a "college or university curriculum aimed at imparting broad general knowledge and developing general intellectual capacities, in contrast to a professional, vocational, or technical curriculum."
liberal arts: academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, and social and physical sciences as distinct from professional and technical subjects.
Are there engineering trade schools? I'm guessing not, and I'm guessing that if there are, they're not as respected as colleges are. But should there be well-respected engineering trade schools, for people who have this attitude? Yes. If a well-developed but narrow-scope education is what you want, fine, but allowing the corruption of the system put in place for those who do want to develop "broad general knowledge and...general intellectual capacities" is a bad idea.
I disagree with your assertion that A gift from person A to person B should be a symbol saying "I know you, and I believe that you should have this gift I am giving you."
If you're giving someone a gift (truly, not out of obligation or social pressure or what have you), you have affection for this person--you care for his or her welfare and happiness; therefore, I would say that to give a gift, in the highest sense, says "I believe you will like this gift I am giving you." If this were not the case, then why, in such cases, is the giver upset if he detects that the recipient doesn't like the gift? The giver is not upset because the recipient "is ungrateful", but because he is hurt. The "ungrateful" response refers, inherently, to the sentiment (whatever that may specifically be) behind the gift, but the giver masks his hurt, perhaps even to himself, by making the recipient the "bad guy" and changing the focus of his reaction. Perhaps the giver feels that he's being told that he didn't pick well (which can imply things about the strength of the relationship, which hurts further still), or that he has handed the recipient something which is intended to mean "I like you we're pals yay" and when recipient doesn't react that way to the object, the giver then transfers that reaction to the sentiment behind the gift.
Alternately, if the gift is given because of social obligation or what have you, why should the giver care whether the recipient likes it or not? The giver is obviously not close enough with the recipient to have already chosen to give the gift independently, so why should he expect to have an accurate understanding of what the recipient would actually like? If the recipient is grateful for having received a token of appreciation but doesn't like the form it took, why not be gracious and understanding about the fact that the person might not like the actual object?
I've known people who approach gift-giving in the way that you describe (in both meaningful and social situations), and their gifts are often more a reflection of what they, the givers, would enjoy receiving rather than what the actual recipient would enjoy. The giver genuinely wants the recipient to be pleased with the gift, but inadvertently picks something that the giver likes more than the recipient does. Those givers are often upset and pouty (sometimes privately, sometimes not) if the recipient does not express sufficient pleasure toward the object gifted. Others I've known, who approach gift-giving the other way, tend to be either happy if they see that the recipient acknowledges the sentiment behind the gift, or, at most, disappointed or even sad that the object they picked wasn't well-received, but still happy if the recipient has acknowledged the sentiment behind the gift. In either case, the reaction is still based on the giver's attitudes, not on the recipient's response (over which the giver has no control).
On the other hand, if the person is ungrateful for the token of appreciation, regardless of the form it takes, I suppose being upset would be understandable. But even then, as the giver, you still only have control over how you react to it, internally and externally. ; )
While the Milky Way's black hole lacks such a jet - which is powered by matter falling inside the black hole, scientists believe it may have had one millions of years ago.
I thought that a black hole was a matter-&-light-gobbling monster that never stopped. What does the quote from the article mean? How does a black hole cease to exist? What happens to it?
When are people going to learn?
Photoshop is a lot more intuitive than Gimp is
if you're used to Photoshop. Gimp is a lot more intuitive than Photoshop if you're used to Gimp. I've cursed at Photoshop; my wife curses at Gimp. That's cause we got used to working with one, and the other just works differently.
This isn't what intuitive means. From Oxford:
intuitive
using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive "I had an intuitive conviction that there was something unsound in him."
In other words, "intuitive" implies being able to figure out what is true or correct without already being familiar with what is being evaluated. It would stand to reason that intuitiveness in software GUIs therefore requires some anticipation on the part of the developer as to what "makes sense" to most people (i.e., people unfamiliar with the program; new customers), so that what people think is the correct choice for the command they want to give is actually the correct choice.
I second that. Things have been really screwed up lately, but I was amazed nonetheless at how thrilled people were with his slogan during the campaign. "Change"? It's like a company saying that they sell "Stuff". It doesn't mean anything. I felt like I was watching a satirical movie about the political end-times or something.
As I understand it, in other countries, when the iPhone is offered without a contract, the phone is unlocked. Does this mean that a $600 iPhone from an Apple Store in the US is now unlocked as well?
I don't get it. Why is everyone so surprised by this? Microsoft has been the biggest consumer of their own non-standard web technologies in both an effort to tie services to Windows and to convince other web developers to use their 'neato' technologies.
It seems to me that the ability to own shitloads of guns hasn't been used very effectively over the history of the USA to enforce the constitution or the rights of human beings. It still might in the future, but I'm not optimistic. [emphasis added]
Uh...the Revolutionary War, for starters? The one in which the citizenry was literally and very directly the militia? Or perhaps, if you want to pretend that the history of the USA started as a discrete event when the Constitution was ratified, the Civil War?
I don't mean to start an oft-repeated discussion, but come on. At least try a little bit first.
Why did the OO.org guys go to the trouble of coding all the way up to 3.0.0RC4 for OS X PPC and then not release a final version? Why bother with all that effort if you're not going to actually release it?
I just ran across this website a few days ago. The author also has a diet-related website: The No S Diet Both seem reasonable to me (although I'd personally rather exercise more than 14 minutes a day just because I like it).
Is that because the price is posted including a VAT tax (meaning that you can't tell how much of the cost is the product or service and how much is the tax)? Or are the taxes stated separately?
You seem pretty knowledgeable about cellphone technologies, so I'll ask you my question that went unsolved elsewhere: Apple has a SIM lock on the iPhone that makes it only work with AT&T in the US. Is that SIM lock done in hardware or software? In other words, if for some reason, later down the road, Apple started selling iPhones that were not SIM-locked to AT&T, would they be able to issue a software update that would remove the lock for older iPhones, or would owners of older iPhones have to buy the new, unlocked-out-of-the-box iPhone?
There is a law in California, I believe, that allows you to get out of any signed contract within 3 days of signing the contract. Couldn't one just buy an iPhone, sign the contract, and then come back the next day and cancel the contract?
(This does nothing for people living in states that don't have such a law, but I'm just saying...)
Is the network lock a software/firmware lock, or is it a hardware lock (or both)? In other words, if later down the road, the exclusivity contract with AT&T wasn't renewed, could Apple upgrade all existing iPhones to unlocked status with a software update, or would it require a new piece of hardware?
I guess another way of asking this is: if I want an unlocked iPhone, do I have to buy it from a country where they're selling it with multiple carriers? (Or is there a way to designate multiple locked carriers on one phone?)
Slashdot Mirror
for those who don't wish to read TFA:
BBC News: Europe: Switzerland and the gun
Thursday, 27 September, 2001, 13:19 GMT 14:19 UK
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.
Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.
Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.
Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.
Few restrictions
In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not.
The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced.
Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.
But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.
Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue.
Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society.
Low crime
But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated.
Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.
It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.
Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.
From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.
I logged in to write this. Thank you.
From Wikipedia:
A "liberal arts" institution can be defined as a "college or university curriculum aimed at imparting broad general knowledge and developing general intellectual capacities, in contrast to a professional, vocational, or technical curriculum."
From Oxford:
liberal arts: academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, and social and physical sciences as distinct from professional and technical subjects.
Are there engineering trade schools? I'm guessing not, and I'm guessing that if there are, they're not as respected as colleges are. But should there be well-respected engineering trade schools, for people who have this attitude? Yes. If a well-developed but narrow-scope education is what you want, fine, but allowing the corruption of the system put in place for those who do want to develop "broad general knowledge and...general intellectual capacities" is a bad idea.
Both explanations were very helpful. Thanks!
Nice! Is there a font file one can download?
If I recall correctly, that is *exactly* how the idea of digital downloads was sold to the public: no physical media, therefore lower costs.
I disagree with your assertion that A gift from person A to person B should be a symbol saying "I know you, and I believe that you should have this gift I am giving you."
If you're giving someone a gift (truly, not out of obligation or social pressure or what have you), you have affection for this person--you care for his or her welfare and happiness; therefore, I would say that to give a gift, in the highest sense, says "I believe you will like this gift I am giving you." If this were not the case, then why, in such cases, is the giver upset if he detects that the recipient doesn't like the gift? The giver is not upset because the recipient "is ungrateful", but because he is hurt. The "ungrateful" response refers, inherently, to the sentiment (whatever that may specifically be) behind the gift, but the giver masks his hurt, perhaps even to himself, by making the recipient the "bad guy" and changing the focus of his reaction. Perhaps the giver feels that he's being told that he didn't pick well (which can imply things about the strength of the relationship, which hurts further still), or that he has handed the recipient something which is intended to mean "I like you we're pals yay" and when recipient doesn't react that way to the object, the giver then transfers that reaction to the sentiment behind the gift.
Alternately, if the gift is given because of social obligation or what have you, why should the giver care whether the recipient likes it or not? The giver is obviously not close enough with the recipient to have already chosen to give the gift independently, so why should he expect to have an accurate understanding of what the recipient would actually like? If the recipient is grateful for having received a token of appreciation but doesn't like the form it took, why not be gracious and understanding about the fact that the person might not like the actual object?
I've known people who approach gift-giving in the way that you describe (in both meaningful and social situations), and their gifts are often more a reflection of what they, the givers, would enjoy receiving rather than what the actual recipient would enjoy. The giver genuinely wants the recipient to be pleased with the gift, but inadvertently picks something that the giver likes more than the recipient does. Those givers are often upset and pouty (sometimes privately, sometimes not) if the recipient does not express sufficient pleasure toward the object gifted. Others I've known, who approach gift-giving the other way, tend to be either happy if they see that the recipient acknowledges the sentiment behind the gift, or, at most, disappointed or even sad that the object they picked wasn't well-received, but still happy if the recipient has acknowledged the sentiment behind the gift. In either case, the reaction is still based on the giver's attitudes, not on the recipient's response (over which the giver has no control).
On the other hand, if the person is ungrateful for the token of appreciation, regardless of the form it takes, I suppose being upset would be understandable. But even then, as the giver, you still only have control over how you react to it, internally and externally. ; )
from the article:
I thought that a black hole was a matter-&-light-gobbling monster that never stopped. What does the quote from the article mean? How does a black hole cease to exist? What happens to it?
Poo. I got to it too late. Thanks for the effort, though.
Hmm...just tried this and it failed to build. 3046 errors, 1897 warnings. Wish it worked; I'd like to play with it.
This isn't what intuitive means. From Oxford:
In other words, "intuitive" implies being able to figure out what is true or correct without already being familiar with what is being evaluated. It would stand to reason that intuitiveness in software GUIs therefore requires some anticipation on the part of the developer as to what "makes sense" to most people (i.e., people unfamiliar with the program; new customers), so that what people think is the correct choice for the command they want to give is actually the correct choice.
I second that. Things have been really screwed up lately, but I was amazed nonetheless at how thrilled people were with his slogan during the campaign. "Change"? It's like a company saying that they sell "Stuff". It doesn't mean anything. I felt like I was watching a satirical movie about the political end-times or something.
As I understand it, in other countries, when the iPhone is offered without a contract, the phone is unlocked. Does this mean that a $600 iPhone from an Apple Store in the US is now unlocked as well?
I'm not surprised. I'm just amused.
It seems to me that the ability to own shitloads of guns hasn't been used very effectively over the history of the USA to enforce the constitution or the rights of human beings. It still might in the future, but I'm not optimistic. [emphasis added]
Uh...the Revolutionary War, for starters? The one in which the citizenry was literally and very directly the militia? Or perhaps, if you want to pretend that the history of the USA started as a discrete event when the Constitution was ratified, the Civil War?
I don't mean to start an oft-repeated discussion, but come on. At least try a little bit first.
Thanks - that's a reasonable explanation. I hope that they do end up producing a PPC release relatively soon. I'd really like to try it.
Why did the OO.org guys go to the trouble of coding all the way up to 3.0.0RC4 for OS X PPC and then not release a final version? Why bother with all that effort if you're not going to actually release it?
I just ran across this website a few days ago. The author also has a diet-related website: The No S Diet Both seem reasonable to me (although I'd personally rather exercise more than 14 minutes a day just because I like it).
Is that because the price is posted including a VAT tax (meaning that you can't tell how much of the cost is the product or service and how much is the tax)? Or are the taxes stated separately?
Uh - I charge my iPod Photo on my Mac mini via USB with some regularity. It seems to work fine for me...
You seem pretty knowledgeable about cellphone technologies, so I'll ask you my question that went unsolved elsewhere: Apple has a SIM lock on the iPhone that makes it only work with AT&T in the US. Is that SIM lock done in hardware or software? In other words, if for some reason, later down the road, Apple started selling iPhones that were not SIM-locked to AT&T, would they be able to issue a software update that would remove the lock for older iPhones, or would owners of older iPhones have to buy the new, unlocked-out-of-the-box iPhone?
There is a law in California, I believe, that allows you to get out of any signed contract within 3 days of signing the contract. Couldn't one just buy an iPhone, sign the contract, and then come back the next day and cancel the contract?
(This does nothing for people living in states that don't have such a law, but I'm just saying...)
Is the network lock a software/firmware lock, or is it a hardware lock (or both)? In other words, if later down the road, the exclusivity contract with AT&T wasn't renewed, could Apple upgrade all existing iPhones to unlocked status with a software update, or would it require a new piece of hardware?
I guess another way of asking this is: if I want an unlocked iPhone, do I have to buy it from a country where they're selling it with multiple carriers?
(Or is there a way to designate multiple locked carriers on one phone?)
If these guys are correct, then why have we been spending all this time and money listening to radio signals?