I can't argue with people like you. You're beyond reason.
Let's try something different: On the issues at hand, where do you think society will ultimately end up? On which side of history do you want to find yourself?
I suspect that you won't want tell your grandchildren that you bravely denied the problem and fought against gender equality.
did he shut down your 1-900 psychic hotline or something?
That would be an example of him actually accomplishing something. He's yet to do anything like that. See, his goal isn't to fight against fraudsters, it's to make himself wealthy.
are you saying that Randi fails because other cranks continue to peddle their crap to credulous public?
No. Read it again. I'm saying that Randi fails because every one of his high-profile "debunking" efforts have been failures. You'll find not a single success among them.
Then again, it's possible that he doesn't actually care if his "efforts" are fruitful. He could just be putting on a show for his followers. He is a performer, after all.
Isn't that exactly what Randi claims happened in the "Carlos Hoax"?
No, it's not. Randi's goal with the "Carlos Hoax" was to show how credulous the media can be toward frauds like "Carlos". The media, as it happens, were universally skeptical of "Carlos" -- a fact that Randi ignores because it runs counter to the story he's trying to sell to his witless fans. Put simply, Randi flat-out lied about the media's response to "Carlos" to further his career. (I'm not surprised that he lied, considering the risks he took. Identity theft, passport fraud, the list goes on. Would you want all of that to be for nothing?)
So, yes, I think I'll stick to the opinions of actual scientists. I'll continue to give known liars and criminals the credulity they deserve.
I have. Randi's "history" doesn't impress me, particularly when so much of it is, well, less than trustworthy. The "Carlos Hoax" is a good example there, were he flat-out lied about the media response he actually got. (The "Carlos Hoax" was a failure. The media were obviously not "taken-in", yet that's exactly what Randi claimed happened.) Why would Randi lie about the results? Because he's a performer, not a scientist.
Further, his "debunking" efforts have had essentially zero impact on his targets. Uri Geller, Peter Popoff, Sylvia Browne, John Edwards, Allison DuBois -- all completely unaffected by Randi's rambling. Even Peter Popoff, arguably one of his few actual successes, has been back for decades and is making millions every year.
Why people keep recommending that clown is beyond me.
I was just reading about James Randi's debunking of psychic Uri Gellar
Which didn't impact Gellar's career in any way what-so-ever. A bump like that is nothing to a showman. Just look at Randi himself. Remember that bit about identity theft, passport fraud, and a host of other related crimes? Did it affect his "business" in any way? Nope! He's still peddling his own brand of unscientific skepticism to his undereducated followers.
Let's leave research to actual researchers and keep the carnival freaks out of it.
Yeah, we know. They were also universally inadequate, if you'll recall. The most sophisticated approach to layout management from the bad old days was provided by Java, which no one in their right mind would defend. Visual Studio was even worse, and still is today. If you hadn't noticed, developers still have difficultly dealing with different display resolutions, particularly on mobile. (It's a common complaint.) Few applications even bother, as you can easily see for yourself by trying out a few on your desktop.
Yes, it can be solved for individual applications, and has been solved many times, but there has never been a simple general solution. Further, websites are not the same as applications so, even if your mythical solution existed, it isn't likely to be applicable.
Again, there isn't a simple solution because it's not a simple problem. If you believe otherwise, make your proposal. In the simplest terms: "Put-up or shut-up."
Calculation. Based on the current state of the screen.
Try these CSS Units: vh, vw, vmax, vmin, and %
Better control of height. I want to say "This div fills the rest of the container vertically/horizontally" One of the reasons tables are useful for layout is that you CAN do this by setting the width of a column to *. [...] Coool feature, missing from CSS.
display: table, display: table-cell, etc. should help you with that.
First, the block model. Seriously people, if I specify that a block has a width of 300 pixels I mean that the block has 300 pixels, and not the content inside the block without the padding. Really.
You could make an argument either way. Thankfully, we have box-sizing: border-box and box-sizing: content-box
It simply should not be necessary to have that level of expertise just to such a trivial thing.
Layout is not a trivial problem. Particularly when the layout needs to react to the viewport.
It's because of the difficulties with CSS that we have such terrible things as my personal pet peeve -- web pages that have fixed minimum or maximum widths.
We had that with tables. Remember "Best viewed in 1024x768" and similar notices?
CSS actually improved things there. Today, if the designer is competent, you can do something like a single page app that perfectly fills the viewport and everything, including fonts, scale perfectly with the size of the window. No JS required.
CSS could certainly be improved, I won't argue that, but it has helped far more than it hurt.
Odd. I have the notorious ZTE Open running FFOS 1.1 around here somewhere. I'd give a significantly more positive review.
Sure, it has more RAM, 256mb, but it has none of the problems the ARS writer claims the Cloud FX phone has.
The Cloud FX whiffs on a lot of the basics. It's slow—too slow for Firefox OS.
Now I'm curious. What OS would he run on a low-end device with 128mb of RAM? Certainly not Android -- even 2.2 needed more than 128mb.
Just something like opening Solitaire takes 10 seconds (we timed it)
I know the exact app they tested! It's complete garbage. That thing would take 10 seconds to load on a high-end desktop. They should have tested some of the better games, like Asteroid Mania or Cut the Rope.
The app store is anemic, but it's certainly not the empty wasteland the author makes it out to be. There are more than enough apps and games to keep a you busy. Yes, at least in my experience, the vast majority are local apps.
Who knows, maybe the Cloud FX really is that much worse than my ZTE Open. But I have every reason to doubt that it's as bad as the author suggests.
After all "if it doesn't fit your view point of the world, it's wrong."
That's one way for you to justify your bigotry. Surely, your opinion that women/blacks/Jews/whoever are inferior is just as valid as my opinion that they're equals.
After all, you have a few token members of your particular hated minority that agree with your particular brand of insanity, so you couldn't possibly be bigoted!
Bad analogy time. That's like saying "I'm all for equal treatment and opportunities, but handicapped people want unequal treatment (wheelchair ramps, elevators)."
If you want equal opportunity, you can't just sit there and pretend that everyone is the same. Different groups have different needs and face different obstacles. By refusing to make appropriate accommodations, you perpetuate inequality.
Slashdot Mirror
It would help, the second time, if you got it from a university.
Universally. Not really. Some skeptical, some more, some less.
So ... universally then. Glad you agree.
Yeah, right. What are *you* trying to imply with a list of things Randy did not do.
Well, he did all of those things. Did you miss it? It's well-publicized.
Your level of denial is astonishing.
I can't argue with people like you. You're beyond reason.
Let's try something different: On the issues at hand, where do you think society will ultimately end up? On which side of history do you want to find yourself?
I suspect that you won't want tell your grandchildren that you bravely denied the problem and fought against gender equality.
I don't get whats so unscientific about randis skepticism
The lack of science. It's not exactly a big secret.
somehow his critics always believe in some sort of another magic
If it makes you feel more comfortable to believe that, go ahead. I don't argue with creationist either. I can't change their minds.
I have a different idea. How about we apply that same skepticism that Randi's fans believe they've mastered to Randi and his organization?
You won't like what you discover. It's no fun seeing a personal hero in the cold light of reality, but isn't it worth it, ultimately?
did he shut down your 1-900 psychic hotline or something?
That would be an example of him actually accomplishing something. He's yet to do anything like that. See, his goal isn't to fight against fraudsters, it's to make himself wealthy.
are you saying that Randi fails because other cranks continue to peddle their crap to credulous public?
No. Read it again. I'm saying that Randi fails because every one of his high-profile "debunking" efforts have been failures. You'll find not a single success among them.
Then again, it's possible that he doesn't actually care if his "efforts" are fruitful. He could just be putting on a show for his followers. He is a performer, after all.
Isn't that exactly what Randi claims happened in the "Carlos Hoax"?
No, it's not. Randi's goal with the "Carlos Hoax" was to show how credulous the media can be toward frauds like "Carlos". The media, as it happens, were universally skeptical of "Carlos" -- a fact that Randi ignores because it runs counter to the story he's trying to sell to his witless fans. Put simply, Randi flat-out lied about the media's response to "Carlos" to further his career. (I'm not surprised that he lied, considering the risks he took. Identity theft, passport fraud, the list goes on. Would you want all of that to be for nothing?)
So, yes, I think I'll stick to the opinions of actual scientists. I'll continue to give known liars and criminals the credulity they deserve.
I have. Randi's "history" doesn't impress me, particularly when so much of it is, well, less than trustworthy. The "Carlos Hoax" is a good example there, were he flat-out lied about the media response he actually got. (The "Carlos Hoax" was a failure. The media were obviously not "taken-in", yet that's exactly what Randi claimed happened.) Why would Randi lie about the results? Because he's a performer, not a scientist.
Further, his "debunking" efforts have had essentially zero impact on his targets. Uri Geller, Peter Popoff, Sylvia Browne, John Edwards, Allison DuBois -- all completely unaffected by Randi's rambling. Even Peter Popoff, arguably one of his few actual successes, has been back for decades and is making millions every year.
Why people keep recommending that clown is beyond me.
I was just reading about James Randi's debunking of psychic Uri Gellar
Which didn't impact Gellar's career in any way what-so-ever. A bump like that is nothing to a showman. Just look at Randi himself. Remember that bit about identity theft, passport fraud, and a host of other related crimes? Did it affect his "business" in any way? Nope! He's still peddling his own brand of unscientific skepticism to his undereducated followers.
Let's leave research to actual researchers and keep the carnival freaks out of it.
You should have professional magicians look at it.
Ugh, no thanks. I stick to the educated opinions of actual scientists, thanks.
Because not everyone wants to broadcast what they're writing. The silence is nice for the people around the user as well.
Have you ever been stuck around some yahoo talking way too loud on their mobile? It's irritating.
Distance can be measured in any unit, despite some dumbasses here claiming it can't be.
What is the distance between New York and Chicago in Kilograms?
Yeah, we know. They were also universally inadequate, if you'll recall. The most sophisticated approach to layout management from the bad old days was provided by Java, which no one in their right mind would defend. Visual Studio was even worse, and still is today. If you hadn't noticed, developers still have difficultly dealing with different display resolutions, particularly on mobile. (It's a common complaint.) Few applications even bother, as you can easily see for yourself by trying out a few on your desktop.
Yes, it can be solved for individual applications, and has been solved many times, but there has never been a simple general solution. Further, websites are not the same as applications so, even if your mythical solution existed, it isn't likely to be applicable.
Again, there isn't a simple solution because it's not a simple problem. If you believe otherwise, make your proposal. In the simplest terms: "Put-up or shut-up."
Calculation. Based on the current state of the screen.
Try these CSS Units: vh, vw, vmax, vmin, and %
Better control of height. I want to say "This div fills the rest of the container vertically/horizontally" One of the reasons tables are useful for layout is that you CAN do this by setting the width of a column to *. [...] Coool feature, missing from CSS.
display: table, display: table-cell, etc. should help you with that.
First, the block model. Seriously people, if I specify that a block has a width of 300 pixels I mean that the block has 300 pixels, and not the content inside the block without the padding. Really.
You could make an argument either way. Thankfully, we have box-sizing: border-box and box-sizing: content-box
It simply should not be necessary to have that level of expertise just to such a trivial thing.
Layout is not a trivial problem. Particularly when the layout needs to react to the viewport.
It's because of the difficulties with CSS that we have such terrible things as my personal pet peeve -- web pages that have fixed minimum or maximum widths.
We had that with tables. Remember "Best viewed in 1024x768" and similar notices?
CSS actually improved things there. Today, if the designer is competent, you can do something like a single page app that perfectly fills the viewport and everything, including fonts, scale perfectly with the size of the window. No JS required.
CSS could certainly be improved, I won't argue that, but it has helped far more than it hurt.
The point in contention, as you'll recall, was that racism was a major factor in drug prohibition. Please try to focus.
Try learning it. Your opinion will quickly change.
Odd. I have the notorious ZTE Open running FFOS 1.1 around here somewhere. I'd give a significantly more positive review.
Sure, it has more RAM, 256mb, but it has none of the problems the ARS writer claims the Cloud FX phone has.
The Cloud FX whiffs on a lot of the basics. It's slow—too slow for Firefox OS.
Now I'm curious. What OS would he run on a low-end device with 128mb of RAM? Certainly not Android -- even 2.2 needed more than 128mb.
Just something like opening Solitaire takes 10 seconds (we timed it)
I know the exact app they tested! It's complete garbage. That thing would take 10 seconds to load on a high-end desktop. They should have tested some of the better games, like Asteroid Mania or Cut the Rope.
The app store is anemic, but it's certainly not the empty wasteland the author makes it out to be. There are more than enough apps and games to keep a you busy. Yes, at least in my experience, the vast majority are local apps.
Who knows, maybe the Cloud FX really is that much worse than my ZTE Open. But I have every reason to doubt that it's as bad as the author suggests.
Remember also that there are fewer than 100,000 genes in the human genome.
I thought it was closer to 20k?
We need a biologist.
After all "if it doesn't fit your view point of the world, it's wrong."
That's one way for you to justify your bigotry. Surely, your opinion that women/blacks/Jews/whoever are inferior is just as valid as my opinion that they're equals.
After all, you have a few token members of your particular hated minority that agree with your particular brand of insanity, so you couldn't possibly be bigoted!
You'll find a few token "Uncle Toms" in just about every group of bigots. That doesn't make me any less skeptical about the AC's claims.
Bad analogy time. That's like saying "I'm all for equal treatment and opportunities, but handicapped people want unequal treatment (wheelchair ramps, elevators)."
If you want equal opportunity, you can't just sit there and pretend that everyone is the same. Different groups have different needs and face different obstacles. By refusing to make appropriate accommodations, you perpetuate inequality.
Phil Mason? Is that you?
Says the AC mysteriously repeating MRA talking points...
Got it. Ignore any problem because you read somewhere that it exists, therefore, it does not.
. The command line reminded me of exploring some cave... the directories different tunnels, etc... I was a kid.
Not on your Vic-20.