While good advice, something like this should be implemented as a natural part of the specification, or not at all. This rings to me as an attempt to manhandle HTML/Javascript/CSS into a use case for which it is not intended.
HTML already does chunked loading. This is one of the big reasons you shouldn't use tables for layout. Since most tables are set to use auto layout, the browser has to wait for the table content before it can start rendering.
Passenger conversation is no where near cell conversation in degree of disruption resulting in missed tasks.
This should be obvious, but sadly it's not. When you're talking to someone who's in a car on a cellphone, you can't see the traffic they have to deal with, you can't see the environment (rain/snow/etc.), you can't see that some ass ran a red and nearly collided into the car, you can't see the lines of aggravation or beads of sweat on your driver's face... all these conversational context clues a fellow passenger has that a person on the other end of a phone doesn't.
Treating all claims as equally worthy of consideration is just plain silliness.
Tell that to Copernicus.
Only when we exhaust the possibilities of the natural, will there be time to consider the supernatural.
"Humanity needs practical men, who get the most out of their work, and, without forgetting the general good, safeguard their own interests. But humanity also needs dreamers, for whom the disinterested development of an enterprise is so captivating that it becomes impossible for them to devote their care to their own material profit."
He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody.
1. Agnostics don't feel they're avoiding a position. Their position is clear: conclusions cannot be drawn in the absence of evidence.
2. Why should an agnostic be intrinsically afraid of antagonism? Disagreeing with any organized religion automatically opens you up to antagonism from adherents, no matter what your position is. The statement reeks of troll.
the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect
Any claim merits cognitive consideration (also known as thinking about it). Dismissing claims entirely outright because of the claimant specifically or the "arbitrary" appearance of such a claim would violate the fundamental aspects of the scientific method.
Peikoff is essentially criticizing the very thing that keeps agnostics credible: their unwavering belief in reason and reason alone.
He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported.
This does not logically follow the former. Weighing all the evidence instead of discounting something out-of-hand because of personal prejudice doesn't necessarily suddenly make all the evidence "equal."
The fact is that his view is one of the falsest--and most cowardly--stands there can be.
The fact is, is it? Peikoff's definition of fact needs work.
What's more, you could argue that something like this is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Gates is screwing society out of billions of dollars through underhanded business tactics, only to give back a portion of the money through charitable donations.
Yeah, but if "Peter" is some faceless multinational corporation, and "Paul" is the teeming masses of not-inoculated third-world poor... well, rob away, says I.
Before that breakthrough, the company lost a Malaysian satellite deployment system along with the ashes of actor James Doohan, who played Scotty on Star Trek, and an inexpensive NASA satellite.
I love how they use the coercive threat of prison violence. These days it's just accepted as fact that the prison system is completely and utterly broken beyond repair.
Their retention is nearly as good as GigaNews, and I like being able to support a place with a leftist/pro-civil liberties stance on access logs.
If you're looking for some exceptionally esoteric porn you're probably better-off with a different server. But if you just need the basics, with long post-retention and no random pain-in-the-ass post purging, EasyNews should definitely be on your short list of candidates.
Other things I like about EasyNews:
Unused monthly transfer capacity rolls over to the next month.
If you ever stop subscribing with them, but later on decide you want to come back, you can create a new account that retains the gigs of transfer credits from your old account. Awesome. (Just re-register with your old username & password)
Web downloading (specifically, port 80 downloading. Much lower likelihood of having your bandwidth throttled.
The people who stand to lose here are the T-Mobile customers who have their billing data stolen, their credit card numbers traded, and so on.
There's way more money in having the data than the actual content of the data. I'm sure these guys couldn't be bothered with all the work involved in identity theft or credit card fraud. Too many small deals, too much exposure. Not to mention all those cards will be quickly flagged and effectively useless.
According to the article, these guys wanted to make one big sale to a competitor. Sprint or Verizon or their ilk won't care about your credit card numbers, either. They're more interested in knowing what "the other guy" is using for a database, or what kind of hardware they use, or their backup policy, or the vendors they use... fairly mundane stuff to you or I, but a huge competitive advantage for them.
Sorry to be replying to myself, but I mean just look at this list:
* Amazon
* Apple
* Automattic
* Blizzard
* Craigslist
* Data.gov
* DoubleClick
* EBay
* Electronic Frontier Foundation
* Facebook
* Flickr
* GoDaddy
* Google
* MySpace
* Organizing For America
* Recovery.gov
* Twitter
* Whitehouse.gov
* Yahoo!
* YouTube
How often does fucking Twitter's change in Terms of Service screw up your life? And real nice that you're monitoring yourselves as well, because I'm sure we were all really worried about that.
But how about some of these bastards:
* BlueCross BlueShield
* Time Warner
* AIG
* Bank of America
* Verizon
I hate to look a gift-horse in the mouth, but come on. You're pissing away a perfect opportunity to actually be relevant.
Boston University does this with their College of General Studies. CGS is a two-year program (basically an Associates Degree) and when you finish you go straight into the regular university. Essentially, incoming students with poor high school grades are sent to CGS, and this college is conveniently left out of ranking calculations. It's a huge cash-cow for them, as well, since most CGS students aren't receiving financial aid.
At some point, they can run Windows without sacrificing the "user experience."
You just contradicted yourself. People don't care about the OS. Consumers don't care if they can run Windows. They want to be able to surf the web, write letters, maybe use a spreadsheet once or twice a month, listen to music and watch some porn. Give them hardware that can handle that, and they won't care about the OS.
There's only so much processing power you need to be able to do these things. With a nice, fast OS, you don't need the latest & greatest Intel offering. Which means you can reduce manufacturing costs to peanuts.
Because Google can put a lot more pressure on the hardware vendors than the Linux community can. And that means they will have more "it just works" success rates than Linux. This has always been Apple's big secret. The more you can guarantee that the hardware will just work, the more time the software guys can have working on fancy user interfaces.
Slashdot Mirror
While good advice, something like this should be implemented as a natural part of the specification, or not at all. This rings to me as an attempt to manhandle HTML/Javascript/CSS into a use case for which it is not intended.
HTML already does chunked loading. This is one of the big reasons you shouldn't use tables for layout. Since most tables are set to use auto layout, the browser has to wait for the table content before it can start rendering.
a world in which it was a crime simply to possess certain information would be very scary
Uh, you do realize you already live in that world, right? Right?
Yeah, I don't understand how even possessing that kind of database is legal, let alone trying to charge people for access to it.
I think this guy's business model needs some work.
With my previous phone, I could just feel the buttons
Careful throwing around all that "logic" and "sensibility" or you might rouse the ire of an Apple fanboi or two.
'Cause, like, buttons are soooo 20th century, dude.
Passenger conversation is no where near cell conversation in degree of disruption resulting in missed tasks.
This should be obvious, but sadly it's not. When you're talking to someone who's in a car on a cellphone, you can't see the traffic they have to deal with, you can't see the environment (rain/snow/etc.), you can't see that some ass ran a red and nearly collided into the car, you can't see the lines of aggravation or beads of sweat on your driver's face... all these conversational context clues a fellow passenger has that a person on the other end of a phone doesn't.
Treating all claims as equally worthy of consideration is just plain silliness.
Tell that to Copernicus.
Only when we exhaust the possibilities of the natural, will there be time to consider the supernatural.
"Humanity needs practical men, who get the most out of their work, and, without forgetting the general good, safeguard their own interests. But humanity also needs dreamers, for whom the disinterested development of an enterprise is so captivating that it becomes impossible for them to devote their care to their own material profit."
-Marie Curie
He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody.
1. Agnostics don't feel they're avoiding a position. Their position is clear: conclusions cannot be drawn in the absence of evidence.
2. Why should an agnostic be intrinsically afraid of antagonism? Disagreeing with any organized religion automatically opens you up to antagonism from adherents, no matter what your position is. The statement reeks of troll.
the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect
Any claim merits cognitive consideration (also known as thinking about it). Dismissing claims entirely outright because of the claimant specifically or the "arbitrary" appearance of such a claim would violate the fundamental aspects of the scientific method.
Peikoff is essentially criticizing the very thing that keeps agnostics credible: their unwavering belief in reason and reason alone.
He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported.
This does not logically follow the former. Weighing all the evidence instead of discounting something out-of-hand because of personal prejudice doesn't necessarily suddenly make all the evidence "equal."
The fact is that his view is one of the falsest--and most cowardly--stands there can be.
The fact is, is it? Peikoff's definition of fact needs work.
What's more, you could argue that something like this is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Gates is screwing society out of billions of dollars through underhanded business tactics, only to give back a portion of the money through charitable donations.
Yeah, but if "Peter" is some faceless multinational corporation, and "Paul" is the teeming masses of not-inoculated third-world poor... well, rob away, says I.
only the Sys-Admins have root access, and they live inside locked buildings at the data centers.
What exactly have I given up?
Those guys have to order pizza eventually. And when they do... look out!
Frankly, if MS would have added decent USB support to Windows 2k, I would never have switched to XP.
Well, that and much better wireless networking support.
From the Wired article:
Before that breakthrough, the company lost a Malaysian satellite deployment system along with the ashes of actor James Doohan, who played Scotty on Star Trek, and an inexpensive NASA satellite.
That's what I get for not reading every day.
So basically I think that 64 bit is the 'killer feature' for mid-range or better desktop use for either Vista or Windows 7
Just FYI, there's been a 64-bit version of XP around for almost 5 years now.
I love how they use the coercive threat of prison violence. These days it's just accepted as fact that the prison system is completely and utterly broken beyond repair.
Their retention is nearly as good as GigaNews, and I like being able to support a place with a leftist/pro-civil liberties stance on access logs.
If you're looking for some exceptionally esoteric porn you're probably better-off with a different server. But if you just need the basics, with long post-retention and no random pain-in-the-ass post purging, EasyNews should definitely be on your short list of candidates.
Other things I like about EasyNews:
The people who stand to lose here are the T-Mobile customers who have their billing data stolen, their credit card numbers traded, and so on.
There's way more money in having the data than the actual content of the data. I'm sure these guys couldn't be bothered with all the work involved in identity theft or credit card fraud. Too many small deals, too much exposure. Not to mention all those cards will be quickly flagged and effectively useless.
According to the article, these guys wanted to make one big sale to a competitor. Sprint or Verizon or their ilk won't care about your credit card numbers, either. They're more interested in knowing what "the other guy" is using for a database, or what kind of hardware they use, or their backup policy, or the vendors they use... fairly mundane stuff to you or I, but a huge competitive advantage for them.
We forget these guys are no different than the robbers and thugs you see on "cops" or the evening news
When thieves rob ordinary citizens, it's sad.
When thieves rob other thieves, it's schadenfreude.
You're forgetting the fact that the stock split twice between 99 and 09.
More.
Google-resistive.
Much like a lot of Slashdotters.
Sorry to be replying to myself, but I mean just look at this list:
* Amazon
* Apple
* Automattic
* Blizzard
* Craigslist
* Data.gov
* DoubleClick
* EBay
* Electronic Frontier Foundation
* Facebook
* Flickr
* GoDaddy
* Google
* MySpace
* Organizing For America
* Recovery.gov
* Twitter
* Whitehouse.gov
* Yahoo!
* YouTube
How often does fucking Twitter's change in Terms of Service screw up your life? And real nice that you're monitoring yourselves as well, because I'm sure we were all really worried about that.
But how about some of these bastards:
* BlueCross BlueShield
* Time Warner
* AIG
* Bank of America
* Verizon
I hate to look a gift-horse in the mouth, but come on. You're pissing away a perfect opportunity to actually be relevant.
Well, I guess it's great that they're tracking Google and Facebook and YouTube.
But how about they track the terms of service on some major credit card companies, as well?
Or health insurance companies?
Or car insurance.
You know... something fucking useful?
Boston University does this with their College of General Studies. CGS is a two-year program (basically an Associates Degree) and when you finish you go straight into the regular university. Essentially, incoming students with poor high school grades are sent to CGS, and this college is conveniently left out of ranking calculations. It's a huge cash-cow for them, as well, since most CGS students aren't receiving financial aid.
You make the common mistake many other people make in thinking because you can feel the keys that tactile sense is important in typing.
Funny, I don't recall using the word "typing." Probably because you don't have to do much with an MP3 player, or a phone.
Speaking of which, I would like to see how well your muscle memory does with the object in your pocket.
+1 Informative
At some point, they can run Windows without sacrificing the "user experience."
You just contradicted yourself. People don't care about the OS. Consumers don't care if they can run Windows. They want to be able to surf the web, write letters, maybe use a spreadsheet once or twice a month, listen to music and watch some porn. Give them hardware that can handle that, and they won't care about the OS.
There's only so much processing power you need to be able to do these things. With a nice, fast OS, you don't need the latest & greatest Intel offering. Which means you can reduce manufacturing costs to peanuts.
Because Google can put a lot more pressure on the hardware vendors than the Linux community can. And that means they will have more "it just works" success rates than Linux. This has always been Apple's big secret. The more you can guarantee that the hardware will just work, the more time the software guys can have working on fancy user interfaces.