The analogy wasn't apt at all. It was awful. What you're advocating diminishes the internet. I'm suggesting you punish the administrators not just the end users. Take away their IP address allocation and give them to someone else who's willing to make proper use of them. Don't block IPs.
And I'm sure someone's pointed this out, but 'an eye for an eye' is not only Old Testament, it's maximum retribution, not minimum. It's not saying 'You should punish someone as they punish you', it's saying 'Under no circumstances can you kill a man for taking your eye', which was acceptable before then.
Retribution is a bad idea. If you punish someone it shouldn't be because you're trying to justify your rage at what they've done to you. You should be trying to minimise harm and prevent recurrence of harm, not adding to it. How does adding to the pain and loss improve anything for anyone???
And it's one of the few OT laws Jesus directly addressed, saying if someone takes one of your eyes, you should offer them the chance to take your other, and not wish for any sort of venegance. A very hard idea to live with.
A very stupid idea to live with. Never mind that it's hard. Some ideas are hard and worthwhile. This one just means you end up with a bunch of loons running around poking out both people's eyes because they know there's no consequence.
...and yes...your web site as others pointed out is awful. Also in terms of functionality it doesn't demonstrate how to do even a quarter of what I'm expected to do day to day. Where's the user input, sytle sheets to print vs display, export functionality, etc. etc.
If you honestly don't understand why others require functionality other than display a personal goth style page you shouldn't be commenting on this.
Not to mention even if you stick to standards things display and behave differently between browsers.
This is not about hacks. You can write hacks for Firefox just as well as IE. This is about WORKAROUNDS - finding features that should work in the browser that don't, then finding a way around them, only to discover that that way - the only way to do what you need - requires non standard functionality. If there's a choice between a standard way that works and a non-standard way that works you pick the standard. If you're asked to do something that uses IE specific functionality that your boss/customer/client knows can be done, but it requires the use of something non-standard, what are you suppose to do once you've pointed out the downside of proceeding? Quit?!? Refuse?!? Few developers would do that and it's unreasonable to blame them for wanting to keep their jobs.
Well I don't know what the public decency laws are like in Brasil but if a non-celebrity attempted this in the US or AUS (where I am) they'd likely be arrested for public indecency. As for privacy it doesn't apply to things you do in full plain site in public. It's a sham. Also I'm suspicious that the camera angles on this are just a little too good for it to be unplanned. I think it's probably a publicity stunt.
Sorry but what a terrible analogy. Sound walls don't redirect traffic, they fix the problem of sound affecting nearby homes. You're mixing a traffic metaphor with a sound metaphor in a way that makes so little sense it's worse than bad - it's confusing.
You definitely do destroy not only the village but a connected community of villages with your solution. What should be happening is bringing pressure to bear against those who have had the address space allocated to them, then moving up the supply chain. Ultimately those addresses should be allocated elsewhere to others willing to play by the rules and block violators. There is bound to be someone who can see advantage to being given control over the address space and who's willing to use it correctly. You therefore CURE the village - that's how you prevent the fire-bombing.
robably stems from the IE workarounds that were poorly done falling apart under IE7, or something similar. In other words, it's partly the fault of the developers
Just what were the developers suppose to do? *NOT* work around the bugs and non-compliance??? Or keep web sites so basic they didn't fulfil their business function???
That doesn't make it inappropriate to block traffic from places where the overwhelming majority of the packets are toxic.
Turning the INTERnet into the HINDERnet your effort will eventually make the Internet useless. You therefore destroy what you're trying to facilitate use of. Not clever.
The events of the Old Testament took place before God sat down and took some anger management classes.
See I can't swallow that, and it's a classic example of why I don't refer to myself as Christian at all anymore. Here we're suppose to have an all-knowing, all-powerful perfect being that has a change of mind and heart regarding basic philosophies of what is right or wrong. I've heard all sorts of arguments for why this is so. Probably the strongest is that as people became less barbaric religious doctrine changed to be more humane and suit the times. This too I can't swallow because if you're going to be revisionist surely the technological and social change of the last couple of hundred years calls for further change to doctrine.
Nope all I can say is that these religious precepts are just a bunch of morals and stories that are used by those more powerful and intelligent to control those with less brains.
Put more succinctly: Any religion that goes from "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek" is inherently flawed.
As an aside both ideas as absolutes are extremist and don't work. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, and turn the other cheek encourages bullying and oppression. I much prefer the idea of doing what harm needs to be done in order to preserve oneself and no more. ie. revenge is wrong/destructive but so is letting people get away with hurting you repeatedly on purpose.
If you want a book that while not perfect goes into much greater depth I'd recommend "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan to anyone.
Has it been replaced with DOPEY and has Dubya signed it nice and president like? Can't have that In-terrr-netttt telling people we came from apes now can we?
You have a country where a president can be impeached for lying about a blowjob, but not for repeatedly breaking the law....good luck to you.
14" telescopes aren't typical. 8-10" is a good piece of kit. Most backyard scopes are smaller (though that's a mistake if your primary interest is astronomy). I've got 2 8" scopes and a 10". Only one of the 8" scopes are suitable for photography. I wouldn't consider a 14" scope right at the moment. Apart from the cost they're bulky and harder to move. Realistically this is for hard core amateurs and astro clubs to do, not anyone with a telescope and a camera. Setting up such false expectations typically puts people off.
Way to make people feel like their personal contributions don't matter. Right from day one. Amazing. Wait till Google's stock does crash (as it must) and watch the sentiment get repaid as people dessert.
I know what Ruby on Rails is of course, but that doesn't stop me picturing an 80 year old drunk rotten-toothed grandmother ("Ruby") on a wheelchair on tracks shouting "yippppeeeee" as she goes past.
As for the real RoR, I started reading about Ruby and stopped within about half an hour. I couldn't help but think "Cowboy coder's dream".
Oh please, pulling out pseudo science like those damned Myers-Briggs personality tests just makes you less than credible when it comes to what does and doesn't make good science.
In any case you've purposefully misinterpreted what I said. I was suggesting that just because scientists are ruled by beliefs and emotion like the rest of us doesn't mean their work is of any lesser quality. It should be looked at on the basis of its own merit using the scientific method, not on the basis of whether or not the scientist believes in the great spaghetti monster in the sky. Some of the best scientists have strong irrational beliefs in very unscientific things. Go re-read what I said.
The issue isn't one of banning technology - no one (sane) is suggesting all cameras be made illegal. The question of whether their use in public places by those in power who have every incentive to misuse them is.
A good example is guns. I do want law enforcement officials with proper oversight and reasonable rules to have access to guns. This should be legal. I don't want the local crime boss to have access to guns. This should be illegal. The devil is of course in the detail.
It's all about power NOT technology. Technology is only the MEANS of such empowerment.
So your issue is basically that you don't find it inconvenient and you think these things will save the planet, then you assume everyone else thinks the same thing and criticise them for not changing over right now.
Well let me point out a few things to you:
1) While they use less electricity, they offset that through the use of materials that are less than environmentally friendly (to the point where one poster complains he must go to the tip to dispose of these light bulbs as his local council considers them too toxic for the regular garbage system to take away
2) Claims about these things have been exaggerated by people who have a vested interest in making you switch to the light bulbs so they can seek a large profit. People have been disappointed by bulb life and claims at brightness among other things. Ever heard the phrase once bitten twice shy? If your first experience of a product is that it doesn't live up to its claims, are you going to push ahead and buy more, or stop and reconsider. Even more the case when it's something as basic as light - it needs to be reliable and no hassle because most of us take lighting for granted. Also does this make you wonder if claims about environmental friendliness may also have been exaggerated? Or do you trust and believe every piece of marketing you read? See point 1
3) While clearly you're not bothered by the disadvantages these things pose including a delay on cheaper units, other people may use them differently. There usage may indeed be SO different that the minor inconveniences become large enough a hassle to put people off switching. In some cases they may even make the light bulbs completely impractical.
4) When the item costs 8 times as much as your current solution, and you have a number of bulbs to replace, you have to think carefully before you act. Going out and buying a bunch of bulbs for a couple of hundred dollars is not something everyone who reads this board can afford. What would you rather do if you had children and were struggling to make ends meet? Go and buy a bunch of overpriced overhyped bulbs which may or may not be good for the environment (but you bet your sweet ass they're good for the companies that make, distribute and sell them) OR feed your damn family for the week? The only sane non-impulsive non-sheep-like way to change over is to change over one or two globes at a time and evaluate whether they meet their claims.
Instead of ranting and railing about how other people should or shouldn't act and telling them what to do with their life and their money, think for a minute what kind of pollution comes out of your keyboard. Suggesting that anyone who doesn't "get with the program" is either lazy, self centered or nasty is just ridiculous, insulting and reflects badly on you first and foremost. You remind me of south park and Cartman saying something like "hippies....hippies everywhere...they think they're saving the world but they just hug trees and smell bad"
And again something STUPID gets modded insightful here...
How dare you talk about brains. You admit giving your girlfriend a credit card and letting her go shop for shoes with it? This is/. - you're not even suppose to admit you have a girlfriend.
4. If someone tries to copy the robot, the robot shall phone the police and home base reporting their violation of the DMCA and shall not perform any other function until the offender is killed or imprisoned in a pound-me-in-the-ass prison for life.
Scientists are human beings. Human beings are not perfect scientific beings. They're flawed creatures ruled by emotion. Have a look at your scientific history and current scientists and you won't find one that is logical and emotionally detatched. Einstein went on about God not playing dice. Newton dealt in petty personal disputes. Scientific method isn't pure or rational. (Just look at how nomenclature gets messed up). Committees don't make things better even - look at our recent IAU definition of the word planet for a classic example of bad science by committee. Funding for projects doesn't work based on pure merit but on who you can convince to support you.
Trying to set up scientists as perfect rational beings is a mistake. Rejecting good scientists because they're not always rational is an extension of that mistake. The advancement of science is just ONE motivation that a good scientist has...hopefully a very strong one...but only one.
Slashdot Mirror
The analogy wasn't apt at all. It was awful. What you're advocating diminishes the internet. I'm suggesting you punish the administrators not just the end users. Take away their IP address allocation and give them to someone else who's willing to make proper use of them. Don't block IPs.
And I'm sure someone's pointed this out, but 'an eye for an eye' is not only Old Testament, it's maximum retribution, not minimum. It's not saying 'You should punish someone as they punish you', it's saying 'Under no circumstances can you kill a man for taking your eye', which was acceptable before then.
Retribution is a bad idea. If you punish someone it shouldn't be because you're trying to justify your rage at what they've done to you. You should be trying to minimise harm and prevent recurrence of harm, not adding to it. How does adding to the pain and loss improve anything for anyone???
And it's one of the few OT laws Jesus directly addressed, saying if someone takes one of your eyes, you should offer them the chance to take your other, and not wish for any sort of venegance. A very hard idea to live with.
A very stupid idea to live with. Never mind that it's hard. Some ideas are hard and worthwhile. This one just means you end up with a bunch of loons running around poking out both people's eyes because they know there's no consequence.
As I said both ideas are just plain dangerous.
...and yes...your web site as others pointed out is awful. Also in terms of functionality it doesn't demonstrate how to do even a quarter of what I'm expected to do day to day. Where's the user input, sytle sheets to print vs display, export functionality, etc. etc.
If you honestly don't understand why others require functionality other than display a personal goth style page you shouldn't be commenting on this.
Not to mention even if you stick to standards things display and behave differently between browsers.
This is not about hacks. You can write hacks for Firefox just as well as IE. This is about WORKAROUNDS - finding features that should work in the browser that don't, then finding a way around them, only to discover that that way - the only way to do what you need - requires non standard functionality. If there's a choice between a standard way that works and a non-standard way that works you pick the standard. If you're asked to do something that uses IE specific functionality that your boss/customer/client knows can be done, but it requires the use of something non-standard, what are you suppose to do once you've pointed out the downside of proceeding? Quit?!? Refuse?!? Few developers would do that and it's unreasonable to blame them for wanting to keep their jobs.
Well I don't know what the public decency laws are like in Brasil but if a non-celebrity attempted this in the US or AUS (where I am) they'd likely be arrested for public indecency. As for privacy it doesn't apply to things you do in full plain site in public. It's a sham. Also I'm suspicious that the camera angles on this are just a little too good for it to be unplanned. I think it's probably a publicity stunt.
Sorry but what a terrible analogy. Sound walls don't redirect traffic, they fix the problem of sound affecting nearby homes. You're mixing a traffic metaphor with a sound metaphor in a way that makes so little sense it's worse than bad - it's confusing.
You definitely do destroy not only the village but a connected community of villages with your solution. What should be happening is bringing pressure to bear against those who have had the address space allocated to them, then moving up the supply chain. Ultimately those addresses should be allocated elsewhere to others willing to play by the rules and block violators. There is bound to be someone who can see advantage to being given control over the address space and who's willing to use it correctly. You therefore CURE the village - that's how you prevent the fire-bombing.
It's not like they have limited resources!
When exactly did they find a way to obtain an infinite amount of cash and an infinite number of excellent developers? Did they patent the process???
Puhlease. No one has literally unlimited resources. Even MS has to budget and plan.
robably stems from the IE workarounds that were poorly done falling apart under IE7, or something similar. In other words, it's partly the fault of the developers
Just what were the developers suppose to do? *NOT* work around the bugs and non-compliance??? Or keep web sites so basic they didn't fulfil their business function???
That doesn't make it inappropriate to block traffic from places where the overwhelming majority of the packets are toxic.
Turning the INTERnet into the HINDERnet your effort will eventually make the Internet useless. You therefore destroy what you're trying to facilitate use of. Not clever.
The events of the Old Testament took place before God sat down and took some anger management classes.
See I can't swallow that, and it's a classic example of why I don't refer to myself as Christian at all anymore. Here we're suppose to have an all-knowing, all-powerful perfect being that has a change of mind and heart regarding basic philosophies of what is right or wrong. I've heard all sorts of arguments for why this is so. Probably the strongest is that as people became less barbaric religious doctrine changed to be more humane and suit the times. This too I can't swallow because if you're going to be revisionist surely the technological and social change of the last couple of hundred years calls for further change to doctrine.
Nope all I can say is that these religious precepts are just a bunch of morals and stories that are used by those more powerful and intelligent to control those with less brains.
Put more succinctly: Any religion that goes from "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek" is inherently flawed.
As an aside both ideas as absolutes are extremist and don't work. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, and turn the other cheek encourages bullying and oppression. I much prefer the idea of doing what harm needs to be done in order to preserve oneself and no more. ie. revenge is wrong/destructive but so is letting people get away with hurting you repeatedly on purpose.
If you want a book that while not perfect goes into much greater depth I'd recommend "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan to anyone.
Kosh, is that you?
Has it been replaced with DOPEY and has Dubya signed it nice and president like? Can't have that In-terrr-netttt telling people we came from apes now can we?
You have a country where a president can be impeached for lying about a blowjob, but not for repeatedly breaking the law....good luck to you.
14" telescopes aren't typical. 8-10" is a good piece of kit. Most backyard scopes are smaller (though that's a mistake if your primary interest is astronomy). I've got 2 8" scopes and a 10". Only one of the 8" scopes are suitable for photography. I wouldn't consider a 14" scope right at the moment. Apart from the cost they're bulky and harder to move. Realistically this is for hard core amateurs and astro clubs to do, not anyone with a telescope and a camera. Setting up such false expectations typically puts people off.
Try telling Ebay or Paypal that there's a problem. All they do is flood you with propaganda about how they're keeping you safe.
After a bad experience I closed my Paypal account and only use Ebay for small purchases.
A rocket booster is not a whole rocket. A spent rocket booster is not a missle aimed at the US for the purpose of blowing things up.
Way to make people feel like their personal contributions don't matter. Right from day one. Amazing. Wait till Google's stock does crash (as it must) and watch the sentiment get repaid as people dessert.
Come on. Try Russian space debris hits...not rocket. It hasn't been (part of) a rocket in some time...
Oh wait, that'd actually be good journalism. Can't have that.
I know what Ruby on Rails is of course, but that doesn't stop me picturing an 80 year old drunk rotten-toothed grandmother ("Ruby") on a wheelchair on tracks shouting "yippppeeeee" as she goes past.
As for the real RoR, I started reading about Ruby and stopped within about half an hour. I couldn't help but think "Cowboy coder's dream".
Oh please, pulling out pseudo science like those damned Myers-Briggs personality tests just makes you less than credible when it comes to what does and doesn't make good science.
In any case you've purposefully misinterpreted what I said. I was suggesting that just because scientists are ruled by beliefs and emotion like the rest of us doesn't mean their work is of any lesser quality. It should be looked at on the basis of its own merit using the scientific method, not on the basis of whether or not the scientist believes in the great spaghetti monster in the sky. Some of the best scientists have strong irrational beliefs in very unscientific things. Go re-read what I said.
Nice straw man argument.
The issue isn't one of banning technology - no one (sane) is suggesting all cameras be made illegal. The question of whether their use in public places by those in power who have every incentive to misuse them is.
A good example is guns. I do want law enforcement officials with proper oversight and reasonable rules to have access to guns. This should be legal. I don't want the local crime boss to have access to guns. This should be illegal. The devil is of course in the detail.
It's all about power NOT technology. Technology is only the MEANS of such empowerment.
So your issue is basically that you don't find it inconvenient and you think these things will save the planet, then you assume everyone else thinks the same thing and criticise them for not changing over right now.
Well let me point out a few things to you:
1) While they use less electricity, they offset that through the use of materials that are less than environmentally friendly (to the point where one poster complains he must go to the tip to dispose of these light bulbs as his local council considers them too toxic for the regular garbage system to take away
2) Claims about these things have been exaggerated by people who have a vested interest in making you switch to the light bulbs so they can seek a large profit. People have been disappointed by bulb life and claims at brightness among other things. Ever heard the phrase once bitten twice shy? If your first experience of a product is that it doesn't live up to its claims, are you going to push ahead and buy more, or stop and reconsider. Even more the case when it's something as basic as light - it needs to be reliable and no hassle because most of us take lighting for granted. Also does this make you wonder if claims about environmental friendliness may also have been exaggerated? Or do you trust and believe every piece of marketing you read? See point 1
3) While clearly you're not bothered by the disadvantages these things pose including a delay on cheaper units, other people may use them differently. There usage may indeed be SO different that the minor inconveniences become large enough a hassle to put people off switching. In some cases they may even make the light bulbs completely impractical.
4) When the item costs 8 times as much as your current solution, and you have a number of bulbs to replace, you have to think carefully before you act. Going out and buying a bunch of bulbs for a couple of hundred dollars is not something everyone who reads this board can afford. What would you rather do if you had children and were struggling to make ends meet? Go and buy a bunch of overpriced overhyped bulbs which may or may not be good for the environment (but you bet your sweet ass they're good for the companies that make, distribute and sell them) OR feed your damn family for the week? The only sane non-impulsive non-sheep-like way to change over is to change over one or two globes at a time and evaluate whether they meet their claims.
Instead of ranting and railing about how other people should or shouldn't act and telling them what to do with their life and their money, think for a minute what kind of pollution comes out of your keyboard. Suggesting that anyone who doesn't "get with the program" is either lazy, self centered or nasty is just ridiculous, insulting and reflects badly on you first and foremost. You remind me of south park and Cartman saying something like "hippies....hippies everywhere...they think they're saving the world but they just hug trees and smell bad"
And again something STUPID gets modded insightful here...
How dare you talk about brains. You admit giving your girlfriend a credit card and letting her go shop for shoes with it? This is /. - you're not even suppose to admit you have a girlfriend.
4. If someone tries to copy the robot, the robot shall phone the police and home base reporting their violation of the DMCA and shall not perform any other function until the offender is killed or imprisoned in a pound-me-in-the-ass prison for life.
Scientists are human beings. Human beings are not perfect scientific beings. They're flawed creatures ruled by emotion. Have a look at your scientific history and current scientists and you won't find one that is logical and emotionally detatched. Einstein went on about God not playing dice. Newton dealt in petty personal disputes. Scientific method isn't pure or rational. (Just look at how nomenclature gets messed up). Committees don't make things better even - look at our recent IAU definition of the word planet for a classic example of bad science by committee. Funding for projects doesn't work based on pure merit but on who you can convince to support you.
Trying to set up scientists as perfect rational beings is a mistake. Rejecting good scientists because they're not always rational is an extension of that mistake. The advancement of science is just ONE motivation that a good scientist has...hopefully a very strong one...but only one.
Dick day is every day on /.