Css is junk and will remain so. Even when done by hand. It is much too complex and lacks basic and very important features. I'm starting to finally master it pretty well, and it is still junk. Too many people are blinded by their own mastery of various tricks, and mistake it for beauty in the system. A truly beautiful system would not need the tricks.
OK, let me get this straight: There's this point A, which you realize is really really important. And then there are these other people who call themselves B, and they are also vocal about A being really really important. However, those people also feel that point C is important, whereas you feel C is pure crap (for this argument we assume that you are correct in this). You also harbor suspicions that B are insincere about A, despite its importance, since you believe they would otherwise reject C just like you do.
So far so good.
But from this you proceed to conclude that you must distance yourself not just from C, or from C and B, but from everything that B advocates, including A, even though you still claim to accept that A is really really important. What are you, some kind of moron? Grow a backbone for fuck's sake.
Ogg Vorbis is a lousy choice, because 1) it has a really really stupid name 2) it is the least likely to be playable on any random piece of hardware you might stumble across in real life (sitting down to upgrade doesn't count). This is probably in part caused by point 1. 3) technical performance is a moot point among modern codecs, since you can really match any given quality on the best of them by using the worst of them and a few extra percent of dirt-cheap storage.
mp3 wins hands-down because it is supported everywhere. Yes, it is half-a-generation of technology too early for ideal standardisation, but the difference isn't that big. Other formats had their chance to grab that position, but lost due to greed and hubris, or in the case of ogg, geeky image and hubris, along with a complete lack of industry support (in the critical phase) and similar lack of strategies to get it.
Among the real contenders, only AAC is really enough of an improvement to bother shifting the industry standard anyway, but Apple managed to nicely smear its image too.
"Can you explain how jet fuel created giant quantities of molten steel?"
Umm, by melting steel? Doesn't burn hot enough, you say? Can you then explain how they melted sand into glass in antiquity, and made steel several hundred years ago, using only the same kind of charcoal for fuel that you might throw on your (steel) barbecue?
Hint: burn temperatures depend on lots of environmental factors. The figures you read are just typical ones, specific to the particular set of circumstances you might find in a small-scale lab experiment not designed to maximize temperature.
Why don't you go ask a firefighter how many nails he finds after a typical total-burndown housefire?
I can see how this research might remind one of 'life', but that does not mean they are the same. A notable difference being, for example, that the game of 'life' says fuck-all about how swarms of higher animals behave.
Yes, but the distribution of that sum over different stages of the cycle can still be shifted.
Using agricultural produce or waste for fuel immediately in stead of letting it decompose more slowly will decrease the proportion of carbon trapped in organic matter, and shift it into the atmosphere. If biofuels become big, this amount will rise to become a significant factor. Still miles better than burning coal, of course, not least since it's reversible in theory, but if photovoltaic or photosynthetic solar can compete realistically (and not consume too much energy in manufacture), that would be an even cleaner option that scales better and doesn't compete for farmland.
Maybe not in many other areas, but the ones that did have the impulse to conquer or for some other reason harm other civilizations would definitely tend to out-compete the ones that didn't.
Damn I wish I had points. That was the clearest rebuttal I've seen to date to date of the sort of numbskulled responses you see all the time on slashdot these days: "why can't people just take responsibility blah blah blah".
It seems a lot of people simply can't tell the difference between "not my problem" and "not a problem" - between placing responsibility for a problem and actually seeing it solved. You wouldn't expect the same people to argue "Why can't all world leaders just sit down and hold hands and sort it all out peacefully", but it's exactly the same sort of worthless argument. Well, I don't know why, but your rhetorical question doesn't mean whatever reasons there are suddenly disappear, and hurrah if they all did what you suggest, but I'm sure as hell not going to carry on with my life pretending "well that's solved, then".
This mental dodo is especially mind-boggling when the negative impact is on a third party and not on the one identified as 'responsible'. "Damn regulations. Parents should take some responsibility and screen their children's toys for toxic chemicals". Implicitly: "if they don't then they deserve what they get". Errr, OK, let's just for the sake of argument assume that they did deserve it. Does that affect what their kids deserve?
This last variant also incorporates another common logical gem: the scapegoat fallacy - the idea that responsibility for something is a constant amount. If you can blame someone, everybody else is off the hook. It's like saying that "the hit man was just doing his job", or "don't blame me, hire the hit man I hired". No. You are both fully responsible for all easily foreseeable consequences of your actions, including how you affect the actions of others, and a longer list of parties who share responsibility for the result does not lessen yours unless it lessens your control or predictive capability over what happened.
Initially I agree, but when you mix in the matrix possibilities, it just becomes too tempting:
This would seem to indiocate that the president is not a monkey after all. To get there the monkey would have had to think "Why, oh, why didn't I take the blue M&M" after first chose the red one. In stead it chose to keep on avoiding the blue, and thus, by grossly invalid inference, monkeys are clearly not presidential material.
Did Bush manage to break the Iraqi's gravity as well?
I find your lack of faith disturbing. Bush decides whether there is gravity in Iraq or not, the same way he decides whether there's a civil war. Implementing the decision is a detail, so minor that it can profitably be skipped.
Funny how these things are always two steps removed from the person telling the story. Are you sure it was it _really_ your dad's boss this happened to? Or are you just shortening the chain to make it easier to tell, and not water down the impact too much? Are you sure the person you heard it from didn't do the same thing? How about the guy he heard it from? A friend of a friend told me this is how urban legends work.
Then came Bush, who likes to take it out again anyway, wave it about, and fuck anyone and anything on his own volition, whether any comparing was going on or not.
The error is, I'm afraid yours. 'hydrogenium' is the latin name for hydrogen. All elements have such a name, which is the only naming that consistenly correlates with the abbreviations used as symbols for the elements. It would be a poor listing of elements that did not include these names.
Now, the origin of those names, that's a different and quite diverse story. But that is not what the article claims it to be, and hydrogen is hardly alone in being identified and named long after Latin was a dead language, or even the language of science.
Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary.
Apart for being hogwash to begin with, it also reveals ignorance about how modern vinyl is produced. For the last few decades, the machine that cuts the master uses a digital buffer in order to be able to adjust groove widths to signal strengths (enough slack all the way through would mean very short play times).
Plus practically all mastering is done digitally today anyway.
Well, umm, the UK and the US are not that different in latitude, and as for the east-west thing, last I checked the earth makes a complete revoluion every day.
Now just to sound like an annoying ingrate, here's my remaining list: * LDAP-access to the contacts * mobile sync for calendar * mobile sync for contacts, notes, etc.
There may well be lots of things to criticise about Greenpeace, but the 'shocked' tone of the blog story is just pathetic. If the accusations are fabricated, fine, take them dowen for that. But the author seems to imply that it would be wrong and hypocritical to go after Apple even if they were true. WTF?
Slashdot Mirror
Css is junk and will remain so. Even when done by hand. It is much too complex and lacks basic and very important features. I'm starting to finally master it pretty well, and it is still junk. Too many people are blinded by their own mastery of various tricks, and mistake it for beauty in the system. A truly beautiful system would not need the tricks.
OK, let me get this straight:
There's this point A, which you realize is really really important. And then there are these other people who call themselves B, and they are also vocal about A being really really important. However, those people also feel that point C is important, whereas you feel C is pure crap (for this argument we assume that you are correct in this). You also harbor suspicions that B are insincere about A, despite its importance, since you believe they would otherwise reject C just like you do.
So far so good.
But from this you proceed to conclude that you must distance yourself not just from C, or from C and B, but from everything that B advocates, including A, even though you still claim to accept that A is really really important. What are you, some kind of moron? Grow a backbone for fuck's sake.
Ogg Vorbis is a lousy choice, because 1) it has a really really stupid name 2) it is the least likely to be playable on any random piece of hardware you might stumble across in real life (sitting down to upgrade doesn't count). This is probably in part caused by point 1. 3) technical performance is a moot point among modern codecs, since you can really match any given quality on the best of them by using the worst of them and a few extra percent of dirt-cheap storage.
mp3 wins hands-down because it is supported everywhere. Yes, it is half-a-generation of technology too early for ideal standardisation, but the difference isn't that big. Other formats had their chance to grab that position, but lost due to greed and hubris, or in the case of ogg, geeky image and hubris, along with a complete lack of industry support (in the critical phase) and similar lack of strategies to get it.
Among the real contenders, only AAC is really enough of an improvement to bother shifting the industry standard anyway, but Apple managed to nicely smear its image too.
"Can you explain how jet fuel created giant quantities of molten steel?"
Umm, by melting steel?
Doesn't burn hot enough, you say? Can you then explain how they melted
sand into glass in antiquity, and made steel several hundred years ago,
using only the same kind of charcoal for fuel that you might throw on
your (steel) barbecue?
Hint: burn temperatures depend on lots of environmental factors.
The figures you read are just typical ones, specific to the particular
set of circumstances you might find in a small-scale lab experiment
not designed to maximize temperature.
Why don't you go ask a firefighter how many nails he finds after a
typical total-burndown housefire?
or just storing the fuel for a really long time before spending it. Either way: not very economically viable, I'm afraid.
it's been around a lot longer
I'm pretty sure swarms have been around longer.
I can see how this research might remind one of 'life', but that does not mean they are the same. A notable difference being, for example, that the game of 'life' says fuck-all about how swarms of higher animals behave.
It's 0 sum
Yes, but the distribution of that sum over different stages of the cycle can still be shifted.
Using agricultural produce or waste for fuel immediately in stead of letting it decompose more slowly will decrease the proportion of carbon trapped in organic matter, and shift it into the atmosphere. If biofuels become big, this amount will rise to become a significant factor. Still miles better than burning coal, of course, not least since it's reversible in theory, but if photovoltaic or photosynthetic solar can compete realistically (and not consume too much energy in manufacture), that would be an even cleaner option that scales better and doesn't compete for farmland.
Sadly, no: drinking it requires a bit more precision.
Maybe not in many other areas, but the ones that did have the impulse to conquer or for some other reason harm other civilizations would definitely tend to out-compete the ones that didn't.
"don't blame me, hire the hit man I hired".
- that would be blame the hit man I hired, of course.
Damn I wish I had points. That was the clearest rebuttal I've seen to date to date of the sort of numbskulled responses you see all the time on slashdot these days: "why can't people just take responsibility blah blah blah".
It seems a lot of people simply can't tell the difference between "not my problem" and "not a problem" - between placing responsibility for a problem and actually seeing it solved. You wouldn't expect the same people to argue "Why can't all world leaders just sit down and hold hands and sort it all out peacefully", but it's exactly the same sort of worthless argument. Well, I don't know why, but your rhetorical question doesn't mean whatever reasons there are suddenly disappear, and hurrah if they all did what you suggest, but I'm sure as hell not going to carry on with my life pretending "well that's solved, then".
This mental dodo is especially mind-boggling when the negative impact is on a third party and not on the one identified as 'responsible'. "Damn regulations. Parents should take some responsibility and screen their children's toys for toxic chemicals". Implicitly: "if they don't then they deserve what they get". Errr, OK, let's just for the sake of argument assume that they did deserve it. Does that affect what their kids deserve?
This last variant also incorporates another common logical gem: the scapegoat fallacy - the idea that responsibility for something is a constant amount. If you can blame someone, everybody else is off the hook. It's like saying that "the hit man was just doing his job", or "don't blame me, hire the hit man I hired". No. You are both fully responsible for all easily foreseeable consequences of your actions, including how you affect the actions of others, and a longer list of parties who share responsibility for the result does not lessen yours unless it lessens your control or predictive capability over what happened.
Initially I agree, but when you mix in the matrix possibilities, it just becomes too tempting:
This would seem to indiocate that the president is not a monkey after all. To get there the monkey would have had to think "Why, oh, why didn't I take the blue M&M" after first chose the red one. In stead it chose to keep on avoiding the blue, and thus, by grossly invalid inference, monkeys are clearly not presidential material.
Did Bush manage to break the Iraqi's gravity as well?
I find your lack of faith disturbing. Bush decides whether there is gravity in Iraq or not, the same way he decides whether there's a civil war. Implementing the decision is a detail, so minor that it can profitably be skipped.
Misanthropic principle: Universal improvement is impossible because someone dislikes the satisfaction of others.
You suck.
People need to take responsibility for their own actions.
Agreed.
Since when is "selling stuff" or "wilfully misleading your customer" not an action?
Funny how these things are always two steps removed from the person telling the story. Are you sure it was it _really_ your dad's boss this happened to? Or are you just shortening the chain to make it easier to tell, and not water down the impact too much? Are you sure the person you heard it from didn't do the same thing? How about the guy he heard it from? A friend of a friend told me this is how urban legends work.
Then came Bush, who likes to take it out again anyway, wave it about, and fuck anyone and anything on his own volition, whether any comparing was going on or not.
The error is, I'm afraid yours. 'hydrogenium' is the latin name for hydrogen. All elements have such a name, which is the only naming that consistenly correlates with the abbreviations used as symbols for the elements. It would be a poor listing of elements that did not include these names.
Now, the origin of those names, that's a different and quite diverse story. But that is not what the article claims it to be, and hydrogen is hardly alone in being identified and named long after Latin was a dead language, or even the language of science.
Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary.
Apart for being hogwash to begin with, it also reveals ignorance about how modern vinyl is produced. For the last few decades, the machine that cuts the master uses a digital buffer in order to be able to adjust groove widths to signal strengths (enough slack all the way through would mean very short play times).
Plus practically all mastering is done digitally today anyway.
the iRon curtain
Well, umm, the UK and the US are not that different in latitude, and as for the east-west thing, last I checked the earth makes a complete revoluion every day.
Do not mock the hüdrogen movement!
string theory, [...] could you explain it in two minutes?
No.
Very cool.
Now just to sound like an annoying ingrate, here's my remaining list:
* LDAP-access to the contacts
* mobile sync for calendar
* mobile sync for contacts, notes, etc.
Damn right. Wish I had mod-points.
There may well be lots of things to criticise about Greenpeace, but the 'shocked' tone of the blog story is just pathetic. If the accusations are fabricated, fine, take them dowen for that. But the author seems to imply that it would be wrong and hypocritical to go after Apple even if they were true. WTF?