Although this raises the question of just what is meant by "slight" autism. Or slight ODD. Or . ..
So true. The nature of mental disorders is such that it is easy to dismiss them out of hand, because they aren't so clear as a broken leg (one can't really have a/slightly/ broken leg!). The subject is complicated by the fact that even people with these problems discount them as so much mystery and hocus pocus, making them less likely to get the help they need. You see this more with things like schizophrenia and Alzheimer's than with autism, but all the mental disorders tend toward underreporting...except addiction. Apparently everyone's an addict.;-)
While I agree with you in large part (a great many people self-diagnose Asperger's especially withing our community), it's worth pointing out that you overstate, I think, the issues. While many people with the Syndrome are severe and exhibit behavior similar to that which you describe, there are those who are not as severe and very much know what we are missing. Autism is a spectrum disorder, which means two things, really: 1. It covers a wide spectrum of symptoms rather than a tight clinically clear grouping and 2) those who have it fall on a spectrum of severity. One can have/slight/ autism just as likely as one can have severe autism. Indeed, severity is highly correlative with order of birth. The first child might display some symptoms, but each successive child is increasingly likely to display increasingly severe symptoms. You friends is likely fairly severe (though not as severe, it sounds, as some I've met), but that can't be used to dimiss legitimate edge cases where the autistic child will have lifelong trouble, but not so severe as to need much help...just enough to be generally unlikable.
This is not to say you are wrong, as I think you are right. Just making suring others don't misunderstand your point and take it to mean that what you've described is the only form Asperger's takes.
Seriously, Privacy is a right (according to SCOTUS) but currently the right is in limbo. The limits and effects are mercurial and need to be codified.
Also, I'm far more worried about breaches of privacy by the government than by ID thieves. Shore up my Right to Privacy properly and I'll feel a little better about things. Adding sentencing recommendations to ID theft cases is like hate crime statutes. I'm not/opposed/ to an extra small smackdown for certain crimes (maybe...I admit to some uncertainty here) but I'd rather have a RIGHT to tell the phone company to play a game of Hide and Go Fsck Yourself when they ask for my SSN, for instance. Bonus points if I can get the right to do the same to the US Government when they don't/actually/ need it.
More a question than a comment, but if old uncle Jethro decides to up and rob a liquor store (we always knew how much Jethro loved his liquor) and they collect DNA from him, what does that mean for the rest of the family? I mean, DNA isn't just a way to identify the person. It's a way to identify entire familial relations. So, having never knocked over a liquor store myself (despite those selfish bastards for not giving it away free!) by virtue of a froward uncle, now whenever a liquor store is hit and DNA left behind, not only can they say "looks like Jethro was here" they could conceivably say "looks like a family member of Jethro's was here". What next? Does that give them Probable Cause to DNA test the rest of us...I mean, they KNOW it was one of us, and I do look drunk most of the time.
I hate to invoke the ol' Slippery Slope argument, but it sure seems like a classic case where the government is poring grease on the slope as we speak.
Tell you what. I'm a consultant with many Healthcare industry clients. You give me a way to set up an online office server at the client's site to make the entire thing an internal app and I'll consider approaching them about it. Til then, every one of these apps is a HIPPA violation (i.e., a guarantee that the government will shut you down if you are in healthcare). Sorry, but I'm not going to send private medical history info to some random service just because they have a posted "privacy policy".
That said, the idea is solid and there are industries for which maybe this is a good idea.
I guess the vast majority of end-user couldn't care less what their video codec is doing
In reading the parent post, I didn't get the impresion he was posting as the "majority of end-users" but rather offering his perspective, which might different substantively from the majority opinion. You're right that the majority won't care, but we needn't squash the minority opinion either. Disclaimer: I happen to agree with him in principle, though I do, somewhat hypocritically, run binary video drivers on my system.
Does that mean the software is useless or bad?
Useless? Maybe. Bad? We'll never know. It's closed source. We just take it largely on faith in the company from which we receive the binary that the driver doesn't do anything bad.
just get over it.
We don't have to get over our opinion any more than you do. We can keep our opinion and voice it and if it is worth hearing, then at least on forums like slashdot, there is a system in place for making sure it gets heard. That's what happened with the parent post. Enough people found it worth hearing that it got modded up, like your post...and probably not like this post here.;-)
Don't take this reply as combative, rather as clarifying. I don't think your point is invalid or even wrong, just that it's not the final word either. When you say things like "get over it" you come across (perhaps wrongly) as appearing like you can't understand the opposing view, which is deadly to honest discussion.
Recidivism rates in sexual offenders are through the roof. There is a reason beyond "ZOMG Think of teh Childx0rs!" Recidivism rates on murder aren't nearly as high. Recidivism rates on drunk driving are a moot point because after 3 times in most states the driver loses the right to drive, which ends that problem.
I'm wary whenever the government wants to/perpetually/ punish a person for a crime even long after the state-established correctionary period, and it gives me the willies to know there is a whole class of crimes for which they can disregard the whole "unreasonable punishment" thing, BUT sex offenders are a known class of criminal that does have serious difficulty stopping their behavior.
Now, the problem is that if this is true, then it points to an underlying biology (drive in the face of clear negative consequences is nearly always born in the genes somewhere) which means we are punishing people for who they are rather than what they do. No, I'm not feeling sorry for the molester or rapist, but it is sad to know that the person apparently truly can't NOT do it and we can't NOT punish them for it. It's a messed up cycle.
Not to get all Clockwork Orange about it, but maybe one day soon these sorts of behaviors can be deleted from the would-be offenders. Til then, I'm gonna have to side with the government on this one. If the chances of a molester doing it again are great enough, then we need to acknowledge it and protect ourselves. The Constitution is ther to protect the individual, but it is not a societal suicide pact. Sadly, there are things that can and do preempt our individual rights at times. And I don't say that lightly.
I can't speak for others, but I am against embryonic stem cell research and I'm also against IVF. For a more nuanced version of my position, you can read this slashdot thread where it was discussed in depth. As a side note, the thread was remarkably polite and insightful for all sides, I think. We all got something from it. It's one of those threads that reminds you how cool slashdot can be.:)
With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against these cameras?
Being safe isn't a boolean true/false dichotomy. Safety, like security, is a matter of degrees, each degree costing us geometrically more than the last degree. At some point you are face-to-face with the Law of Diminishing Returns.
The problem with anything measured in degrees is that we won't always agree on when the limits are hit. Put differently, exactly how many lives must be quantifiably saved before it becomes worth it to see the government put a camera on every street corner? Everyone has a number. For me, the number is higher than that which I think this one serial killer would have killed. It's higher than the cost in lives of 9/11. It's not higher than the cost in lives of, say, WWII, however. Before I saw that many people kiled, I think I'd agree to the cameras. It's always a matter of degrees. My tolerance for risk is higher than most. I don't, for instance, see loss of our liberty worth it when traded for safety from terrorists. Perhaps it's becuase I underestimate what they are capable of. Perhaps not. Either way, the original question is a good one, but inevitably one that we can only answer for ourselves. I guess the beauty of our democracy is that in answering for ourselves we come to a jagged consensus that lets us make a communal decision and move on. It's worth noting that sometimes that consensus doesn't mesh well with our personal ethic (C.f., abortion, stem cell research, the war in Iraq, seat belt laws, and street corner government cameras). In the end, all we can do it make a personal decision and cast our vote. For my vote, I'll be pushing away from street corner cameras. If I'm on the losing side of the issue...well, it won't be the first time.
Personally, I just hope that the Java of the future will look and run much less like ass. That would be a great departure from the old Java.
Right about now, you are moving your mouse toward the "Mod this fruitcake down" button, but don't misunderstand me. I have high hopes for the language. I have been saying for a number of years that Sun had been letting a hot property fall into disrepair while MS played catch up and eventually lapped Java with it's own.NET platform. I've written for both. I like java, basically, but I've recommended C#.NET to clients for numerous reasons.
Since all my home computers use Linux exclusively, I'd love to see some real competition to mono as a platform. An open sourced Java could be it.
Oh, for those still looking to mod me down for speaking poorly of "the precious", you should know you are living in a bubble. Talk to the average corporate developer. The vast vast vast majority of them will say the same thing. "Java? Oh that's that ugly gui stuff, right? Yeah, I don't like Java apps." I've fought the battle long enough to know. Without some fresh blood and a new outlook in the Java camp, it will continue to be further marginalized in favor of.NET and mono.
Seriously, how many java apps have made it into Gnome core? How many are even discussed in terms of their value to the end user? Now ask that about mono apps? Tomboy. Beagle. F-Spot. Muine. These apps are making waves. Where are the equivalent Java apps? Eclipse? An IDE isn't exactly the sort of thing to get the end user salivating. A couple of more obscure file sharing tools? Nothing that has the publics attention. Hell, even us open source guys have written Java off.
So for 2007 what do I wish for from Java? A fresh perspective. A renewed interest in delivering the sort of platform and apps that mono and.NET have done. A genuine competitor to mono on Linux. Embrace SWT instead of Swing. I won't call it a prediction, but I sure hope I'm right.
religious followers are always offended when someone pokes fun at their beliefs
Always is a strong word. It's also the word that makes you wrong. I'm religious. I even have a degree in Religious Studies. I poke fun at my and others' faiths often. I am not offended when others do the same. You really should make such sweeping statements on the basis of such little fact. Their are a horde of reasonable Christians, Muslims, and Hindus out there. You wouldn't know that, though, becuase we don't feel the need make it known that we are both religious AND reasonable. to most people, it's obvious we can be both.
and forget they are part of one of the most violent and viscious organizations in history. (see: Crusades, Persecution, Inquisition...)
It's funny how people with a grudge against Christianity throw the Crusades and the Inquisition in our faces right away. Interesting how we never get the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and Operation Blessing thrown in our faces. I wonder why that is?
The times when a group of civilians could contend with an equally numerous group of soldiers are long gone.
And what gave you the impression that the soldiers would be siding with the government if the government told it to turn on the citizenry? Those that do side with the government will be facing their own weaponry in battle...right next to "grand-daddy's rifle."
Don't worry, though. While you sit at home wishing you had a shot against our new hypothetical governmental overlords, people like me and about 40-65% of the enlisted folk you seem to have written off as government peons will be out there fighting for your right to continue to stay at home frozen in fear. You can thank us afterward.;-)
For general info: Find out your states laws on being a gun collector. You gain legal access to a larger variety of heavy weaponry with the caveat that you don't keep it loaded. Fine enough. Keep the 15 shot handgun loaded. That'll buy you enough time to load your "collector's items". I assure you, while my.45 may not give pause to a well armored government envoy, a shoulder mounted RPG will.
I think this is when I'm supposed to yell "Wolverines!" or something.
I'll agree that the $2000 speaker wire example was a bad one because I agree with you that a human isn't likely to be able to distinguish a difference beyond a certain quality point that sits far below the $2000 mark (assuming a shorter cable run). That said, the typical rhetoric against audiophiles extends far below the $2000 mark. I hear people laugh at the higher end Monster cables, which is stupid. Clearly there will exist a quality difference between a radio shack cable and a higher end Monster cable. Does the difference justify the price? That is a subjective question and really depends greatly on how dicerning your hearing is, frankly. That's all I'm getting at. I'm not debating the merits of $2000 speaker wire, rather I was just repeating the example given by the OP. Note my detailed example was about a far more realisticly discernable difference in quality between 128kbps mp3s and 320kbps mp3s. I noted that I can discern up to about that quality-point, though I tend to store losslessly for cross-encoding reasons.
What you are seeing is the first stage of a mass decentralization. Phones were low hanging fruit (given how easy it was to move them to the ubiquitous IP wires flowing everywhere) and so they got decentralized first, but power will not be an exception. Whole house generators are getting cheaper every day. They take multiple inputs. I've been looking at adding a Natural Gas generator to my house next year sometime. It hooks into my natural gas line and my power lines (coming and going) and acts as a sort of UPS for my home. As long as either my natural gas lines keep flowing OR my power lines keep flowing, I will have power. Add solar to the mix (also getting much cheaper day-by-day) and you start to see a new pattern of reliability emerge; one where decentralization and redundancy replaces the monolithic centralized reliability methodologies of yesteryear.
but in the interim, yes, phone have become far less reliable.:)
Yeah, I meant Kbps not kHz. BIIIG difference as the poster points out! Let this be a lesson in why one should always select "Preview" before "Submit" on/.
"Audiophiles" like to make all sorts or ridiculous claims that lead to things like $2000 speaker cables, gold CDs and just a general proliferation of nonsensical technobabble.
Double blind tests have been done to death on Audiophile equipment, and while the general populous loves to joke audiophiles for their taste in equipment, the tests are clear: There exists a subset of people who can distinguish audio from these supposed frivolities. So, yes, the $2000.00 speaker cables will benefit some percentage of the population. That said, the percentage is small so it makes little sense to push it on the majority buyer, but there is no reason to get testy about audiophiles buying equipment that benefits them. Their claims aren't "ridiculous". They are specific to their experience, while your experience/audio-acuity differs and makes such equipment ridiculous for YOU to purchase.
I've always found it funny that people tend so strongly toward universalizing their perceptions. More often than not, it's the non-audiophiles telling the audiophiles they are stupid, but on occasion I also see the audiophiles trying to get non-audiophiles to upgrade for reasons that only make sense to the audiophile.
I record/buy lossless music. I can (in double blind tests) distinguish quality up to around 320kHz (standard MP3 encoding) whereas I have a friend who considers more than 128kHz to be a waste. For him, it is. For me, it's not. How hard is that to get?
What you'd really find is that as the bitrate of an mp3 goes up, the number of people who can tell the difference goes down. At some point the number of people who can tell the difference becomes a statistically insignificant sample. This would be a good project for some grad student.
It's been done and you are correct that the number grows exceedingly low fairly quickly as the bitrate rises. The beauty of our Brave New World, however, is that the idea of a "statistically insignificant sample" is moving toward obsolescence. It's all about personalization. This was epitomized by the AllofMP3 model, which allowed the purchaser to buy music at the quality that mattered to them. There is no reason why we can't continue that trend. There is no reason to marginalize the purchaser of an intangible good or service anymore with our increased ability to serve ever more specialized products that micro-target ever smaller demographics.
how dare you call yourself the "best country in the world"
What are you talking about? No one in the article said that. Very few I know would make such a sweeping statement. What, are you just looking to extend some debate you had in your mind against a strawman American "sympathizer"?
if you don't even have nationally implemented healthcare?
We do. It's called Medicaid and Medicare. It is a safety net for America's poor and elderly. It gives care to those who need it most and cannot afford to pay for a premium service. Frankly, it's quite good. I have experience with the system. It's a beauracratic mess, but in the end it works. Recent changes to Medicare have caused some problems, but it's too early to see what if any concrete problems those changes might create.
Europe, glorious old lady that she is has long ago implemented the National healthcare
Glorious Old Lady? Glad to see you are approaching your America-bashing without bias.
Everyone has access to proper healthcare.
"Proper" is a qualitative term that is meaningless in this context. That said, I know for a fact that many Europeans would disagree with your use of the word here.
Everyone automatically pays into the healthcare fund so it can be maintained
So I (who eats healthy, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, don't take stupid risks) get to pay the same as the guy who smokes 2 packs a day, drinks like a fish, and is going to cost the system easily 8 times what I will cost it. That's a great system you got there. Count me in.:-|
but look what trusting in those has brought you?
The only trust issue here is your trust of what you are fed anecdotally by the media and slashodot posters instead of the facts. do some research (it's clear you haven't) and then post something intelligent.
if it's run by others then the idiots running the American state
More random insults? I'm surprised you aren't marked as more of a troll than you have been.
The state however [...] should be more interested in keeping it's taxpayers ALIVE and healthy so they can work and pay taxes next year.
So do companies. Companies who run healthcare plans have a vested interest in seeing you healthy. Historically, I've not been a fan of HMO's, for instance. but sometimes the facts contradict anecdote. People who are provided care by HMO's are measurably healthier on average than those provided for by other plans. Why? HMO's, for instance, will call you if you miss a check up or scheduled appointment. They want you to stay healthy. It keeps their long term costs down. They have fairly sophisticated software micromanaging your health care. The government---your european government---doesn't. If you get sick, it actually matters to them. Not so with your government's health plan management. I agree that the free market can only carry us so far, but this is one of those cases where it has carried us farther than a governmental system can or will. Governmental oversight of these companies is good, but government control? Not so good.
Re:Does any major site use pure CSS?
on
CSS Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
It's my personal opinion that some things are just way easier to do with tables than CSS, and that's why people keep doing it. Am I right?
In part, yes. It is easier to design sites that are formatted as we have grown accustomed to them in the old table layout manner.
CSS, however, frees the designer from the constraints that table layout imposes. They allow for a great deal more layout freedom and moreover they make it about twice as easy to design sites that are A11y compliant (at least as per the parameters imposed by section 508).
CSS doesn't do everything well (FFS, why is centering a block element so retarded?!) but overall, it's easier to do many things with CSS than it is to do so with tables---as long as you aren't just trying to reproduce a screwed up table format layout.
Essentially, it boils down to familiarity. Developers (who are not designers) are far more accustomed to table layout processes than they are CSS layout processes, so they use tables.
Spend some time getting to know CSS. In the end, it's going to be far more beneficial to your web-dev career than a lot fo other technologies you could be picking up. Especially as A11y and 508 compliance become more important.
Would it really be so bad to have the government run with a more business like model?
I don't think so.
The government's primary responsibility is not to be efficient but to be helpful. Helping people (often taking the form of protecting us from each other, sadly) is not an efficient business. People are messy and disorganized and cannot be approached in a business-like manner. Churches don't run themselves like businesses. Believe it or not, even 'corporate' churches like CBN are striken with incredible inefficiency. Secular charities are much the same.
While I'd welcome some of the business methodologies (you mentioned a balanced budget, and I think that's a good idea) overall, the government's job isn't business-like and wouldn't be well served by someone who couldn't step outside that role.
Rumsfeld tried to run our military like a business. Look where that got us. While I appreciate his desire to see reform in military aquisition procedure (yes, I actually said something nice about him!) it only underscores the problem of treating human affairs in a business-like manner. Equipment never arrived. Soldiers were spread thin. The war is being lost. You can't apply a JIT supply chain to military affairs in that way. You can't do it with the welfare system, the police and fire departments, our public conservation works, or any of a hundred other inefficient processes that are mucked up by the irregular rhythms of humankind.
This doesn't bear on whether Bill Gates should or should not be president (though he should most certainly not!) since we have no idea how he'd approach he job. Plenty of good business men would make fine presidents becuase they recognize what I'd said. Ross Perot (that crazy little ferengi) would have been a great president, I believe. Despite his corporate background, I think he would have done well in the position.
What effect will the Patent Commons project have on a patent assault by Microsoft? Also, will the newly formed Open Inventions Network also affect the way Microsoft approaches this issue?
I mean, both of those organizations essentially grant rights to their patents royalty free only to companies that don't sue F/OSS projects. If MS starts a suit, wouldn't they have to contend with both of these patent holding portfolios as well as the enormous portfolio of companies like IBM who have a vested interest in seeing Linux succeed?
I get the feeling (though I could be dead wrong) that MS gets far more benefit from the current ambiguity and the occasional stirring, scary statement than from actually pursuing a legal remedy.
...that between the Linux kernel project and Microsoft Corporation, only one of those entities has been convicted (repeatedly!) of patent and copyright violation. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to guess which it is.
It suffices to say, I think the kettle just called someone black.
Let's say each school is completely independent. You can open as many schools as possible but each school must accept all applicants up to its capacity in its region. In cases where capacity is full, applicants are accepted based on proximity or a lottery
With a few adjustments this is quite similar to the charter schools idea (see the NEA's view on them). In fact, I'm not against charter schools in general, nor against the voucher systems that tend to come with them---though I'm more than a bit upset at the way our President used the No Child Left Behind Act to essentially "backdoor" a voucher system into place when it wasn't a popular choice. While I happened to agree with him on this issue (a rarity), I don't like watching the Will of the People sidestepped like that. It essentially creates a scenario where every school in the nation can arbitrarily receive a failing grade (due to legal conflicts between No Child Left Behind and the IDEA laws) and thus every child in every school becomes eligible for a voucher alternative immediately. Kinda lame, even if the end result is something I think is utlimately a good thing.
The charter school idea has promise, but it'll be a few years before we see the full effects and side-effects of this system.
Thanks again for your reply.
No problem. Sorry for the initially less friendly reply. I think my hands were typing long before my brain had moved into the "ON" position.:)
Slashdot Mirror
We're men. Why should we care if a woman is faking something?
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
So true. The nature of mental disorders is such that it is easy to dismiss them out of hand, because they aren't so clear as a broken leg (one can't really have a
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
While I agree with you in large part (a great many people self-diagnose Asperger's especially withing our community), it's worth pointing out that you overstate, I think, the issues. While many people with the Syndrome are severe and exhibit behavior similar to that which you describe, there are those who are not as severe and very much know what we are missing. Autism is a spectrum disorder, which means two things, really: 1. It covers a wide spectrum of symptoms rather than a tight clinically clear grouping and 2) those who have it fall on a spectrum of severity. One can have /slight/ autism just as likely as one can have severe autism. Indeed, severity is highly correlative with order of birth. The first child might display some symptoms, but each successive child is increasingly likely to display increasingly severe symptoms. You friends is likely fairly severe (though not as severe, it sounds, as some I've met), but that can't be used to dimiss legitimate edge cases where the autistic child will have lifelong trouble, but not so severe as to need much help...just enough to be generally unlikable.
This is not to say you are wrong, as I think you are right. Just making suring others don't misunderstand your point and take it to mean that what you've described is the only form Asperger's takes.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
...I want a new Privacy Amendment.
/opposed/ to an extra small smackdown for certain crimes (maybe...I admit to some uncertainty here) but I'd rather have a RIGHT to tell the phone company to play a game of Hide and Go Fsck Yourself when they ask for my SSN, for instance. Bonus points if I can get the right to do the same to the US Government when they don't /actually/ need it.
Seriously, Privacy is a right (according to SCOTUS) but currently the right is in limbo. The limits and effects are mercurial and need to be codified.
Also, I'm far more worried about breaches of privacy by the government than by ID thieves. Shore up my Right to Privacy properly and I'll feel a little better about things. Adding sentencing recommendations to ID theft cases is like hate crime statutes. I'm not
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
More a question than a comment, but if old uncle Jethro decides to up and rob a liquor store (we always knew how much Jethro loved his liquor) and they collect DNA from him, what does that mean for the rest of the family? I mean, DNA isn't just a way to identify the person. It's a way to identify entire familial relations. So, having never knocked over a liquor store myself (despite those selfish bastards for not giving it away free!) by virtue of a froward uncle, now whenever a liquor store is hit and DNA left behind, not only can they say "looks like Jethro was here" they could conceivably say "looks like a family member of Jethro's was here". What next? Does that give them Probable Cause to DNA test the rest of us...I mean, they KNOW it was one of us, and I do look drunk most of the time.
I hate to invoke the ol' Slippery Slope argument, but it sure seems like a classic case where the government is poring grease on the slope as we speak.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
Tell you what. I'm a consultant with many Healthcare industry clients. You give me a way to set up an online office server at the client's site to make the entire thing an internal app and I'll consider approaching them about it. Til then, every one of these apps is a HIPPA violation (i.e., a guarantee that the government will shut you down if you are in healthcare). Sorry, but I'm not going to send private medical history info to some random service just because they have a posted "privacy policy".
That said, the idea is solid and there are industries for which maybe this is a good idea.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
In reading the parent post, I didn't get the impresion he was posting as the "majority of end-users" but rather offering his perspective, which might different substantively from the majority opinion. You're right that the majority won't care, but we needn't squash the minority opinion either. Disclaimer: I happen to agree with him in principle, though I do, somewhat hypocritically, run binary video drivers on my system.
Useless? Maybe. Bad? We'll never know. It's closed source. We just take it largely on faith in the company from which we receive the binary that the driver doesn't do anything bad.
We don't have to get over our opinion any more than you do. We can keep our opinion and voice it and if it is worth hearing, then at least on forums like slashdot, there is a system in place for making sure it gets heard. That's what happened with the parent post. Enough people found it worth hearing that it got modded up, like your post...and probably not like this post here.
Don't take this reply as combative, rather as clarifying. I don't think your point is invalid or even wrong, just that it's not the final word either. When you say things like "get over it" you come across (perhaps wrongly) as appearing like you can't understand the opposing view, which is deadly to honest discussion.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
Recidivism rates in sexual offenders are through the roof. There is a reason beyond "ZOMG Think of teh Childx0rs!" Recidivism rates on murder aren't nearly as high. Recidivism rates on drunk driving are a moot point because after 3 times in most states the driver loses the right to drive, which ends that problem.
/perpetually/ punish a person for a crime even long after the state-established correctionary period, and it gives me the willies to know there is a whole class of crimes for which they can disregard the whole "unreasonable punishment" thing, BUT sex offenders are a known class of criminal that does have serious difficulty stopping their behavior.
I'm wary whenever the government wants to
Now, the problem is that if this is true, then it points to an underlying biology (drive in the face of clear negative consequences is nearly always born in the genes somewhere) which means we are punishing people for who they are rather than what they do. No, I'm not feeling sorry for the molester or rapist, but it is sad to know that the person apparently truly can't NOT do it and we can't NOT punish them for it. It's a messed up cycle.
Not to get all Clockwork Orange about it, but maybe one day soon these sorts of behaviors can be deleted from the would-be offenders. Til then, I'm gonna have to side with the government on this one. If the chances of a molester doing it again are great enough, then we need to acknowledge it and protect ourselves. The Constitution is ther to protect the individual, but it is not a societal suicide pact. Sadly, there are things that can and do preempt our individual rights at times. And I don't say that lightly.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
I can't speak for others, but I am against embryonic stem cell research and I'm also against IVF. For a more nuanced version of my position, you can read this slashdot thread where it was discussed in depth. As a side note, the thread was remarkably polite and insightful for all sides, I think. We all got something from it. It's one of those threads that reminds you how cool slashdot can be. :)
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
Being safe isn't a boolean true/false dichotomy. Safety, like security, is a matter of degrees, each degree costing us geometrically more than the last degree. At some point you are face-to-face with the Law of Diminishing Returns.
The problem with anything measured in degrees is that we won't always agree on when the limits are hit. Put differently, exactly how many lives must be quantifiably saved before it becomes worth it to see the government put a camera on every street corner? Everyone has a number. For me, the number is higher than that which I think this one serial killer would have killed. It's higher than the cost in lives of 9/11. It's not higher than the cost in lives of, say, WWII, however. Before I saw that many people kiled, I think I'd agree to the cameras. It's always a matter of degrees. My tolerance for risk is higher than most. I don't, for instance, see loss of our liberty worth it when traded for safety from terrorists. Perhaps it's becuase I underestimate what they are capable of. Perhaps not. Either way, the original question is a good one, but inevitably one that we can only answer for ourselves. I guess the beauty of our democracy is that in answering for ourselves we come to a jagged consensus that lets us make a communal decision and move on. It's worth noting that sometimes that consensus doesn't mesh well with our personal ethic (C.f., abortion, stem cell research, the war in Iraq, seat belt laws, and street corner government cameras). In the end, all we can do it make a personal decision and cast our vote. For my vote, I'll be pushing away from street corner cameras. If I'm on the losing side of the issue...well, it won't be the first time.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
Personally, I just hope that the Java of the future will look and run much less like ass. That would be a great departure from the old Java.
.NET platform. I've written for both. I like java, basically, but I've recommended C#.NET to clients for numerous reasons.
.NET and mono.
.NET have done. A genuine competitor to mono on Linux. Embrace SWT instead of Swing. I won't call it a prediction, but I sure hope I'm right.
Right about now, you are moving your mouse toward the "Mod this fruitcake down" button, but don't misunderstand me. I have high hopes for the language. I have been saying for a number of years that Sun had been letting a hot property fall into disrepair while MS played catch up and eventually lapped Java with it's own
Since all my home computers use Linux exclusively, I'd love to see some real competition to mono as a platform. An open sourced Java could be it.
Oh, for those still looking to mod me down for speaking poorly of "the precious", you should know you are living in a bubble. Talk to the average corporate developer. The vast vast vast majority of them will say the same thing. "Java? Oh that's that ugly gui stuff, right? Yeah, I don't like Java apps." I've fought the battle long enough to know. Without some fresh blood and a new outlook in the Java camp, it will continue to be further marginalized in favor of
Seriously, how many java apps have made it into Gnome core? How many are even discussed in terms of their value to the end user? Now ask that about mono apps? Tomboy. Beagle. F-Spot. Muine. These apps are making waves. Where are the equivalent Java apps? Eclipse? An IDE isn't exactly the sort of thing to get the end user salivating. A couple of more obscure file sharing tools? Nothing that has the publics attention. Hell, even us open source guys have written Java off.
So for 2007 what do I wish for from Java? A fresh perspective. A renewed interest in delivering the sort of platform and apps that mono and
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
Always is a strong word. It's also the word that makes you wrong. I'm religious. I even have a degree in Religious Studies. I poke fun at my and others' faiths often. I am not offended when others do the same. You really should make such sweeping statements on the basis of such little fact. Their are a horde of reasonable Christians, Muslims, and Hindus out there. You wouldn't know that, though, becuase we don't feel the need make it known that we are both religious AND reasonable. to most people, it's obvious we can be both.
It's funny how people with a grudge against Christianity throw the Crusades and the Inquisition in our faces right away. Interesting how we never get the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and Operation Blessing thrown in our faces. I wonder why that is?
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
Yeah. That's what he said. L.A. New York. Chicago. Detroit. etc.... You know, the Americas. What else is there?
(Es una chiste, mis amigos suramericanos.)
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
And what gave you the impression that the soldiers would be siding with the government if the government told it to turn on the citizenry? Those that do side with the government will be facing their own weaponry in battle...right next to "grand-daddy's rifle."
Don't worry, though. While you sit at home wishing you had a shot against our new hypothetical governmental overlords, people like me and about 40-65% of the enlisted folk you seem to have written off as government peons will be out there fighting for your right to continue to stay at home frozen in fear. You can thank us afterward.
For general info: Find out your states laws on being a gun collector. You gain legal access to a larger variety of heavy weaponry with the caveat that you don't keep it loaded. Fine enough. Keep the 15 shot handgun loaded. That'll buy you enough time to load your "collector's items". I assure you, while my
I think this is when I'm supposed to yell "Wolverines!" or something.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
Never attribute to intent what can be attributed to incompetence.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
I'll agree that the $2000 speaker wire example was a bad one because I agree with you that a human isn't likely to be able to distinguish a difference beyond a certain quality point that sits far below the $2000 mark (assuming a shorter cable run). That said, the typical rhetoric against audiophiles extends far below the $2000 mark. I hear people laugh at the higher end Monster cables, which is stupid. Clearly there will exist a quality difference between a radio shack cable and a higher end Monster cable. Does the difference justify the price? That is a subjective question and really depends greatly on how dicerning your hearing is, frankly. That's all I'm getting at. I'm not debating the merits of $2000 speaker wire, rather I was just repeating the example given by the OP. Note my detailed example was about a far more realisticly discernable difference in quality between 128kbps mp3s and 320kbps mp3s. I noted that I can discern up to about that quality-point, though I tend to store losslessly for cross-encoding reasons.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
What you are seeing is the first stage of a mass decentralization. Phones were low hanging fruit (given how easy it was to move them to the ubiquitous IP wires flowing everywhere) and so they got decentralized first, but power will not be an exception. Whole house generators are getting cheaper every day. They take multiple inputs. I've been looking at adding a Natural Gas generator to my house next year sometime. It hooks into my natural gas line and my power lines (coming and going) and acts as a sort of UPS for my home. As long as either my natural gas lines keep flowing OR my power lines keep flowing, I will have power. Add solar to the mix (also getting much cheaper day-by-day) and you start to see a new pattern of reliability emerge; one where decentralization and redundancy replaces the monolithic centralized reliability methodologies of yesteryear.
:)
but in the interim, yes, phone have become far less reliable.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
lol! Yeah. I'm terribly gifted.
Yeah, I meant Kbps not kHz. BIIIG difference as the poster points out! Let this be a lesson in why one should always select "Preview" before "Submit" on
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
Double blind tests have been done to death on Audiophile equipment, and while the general populous loves to joke audiophiles for their taste in equipment, the tests are clear: There exists a subset of people who can distinguish audio from these supposed frivolities. So, yes, the $2000.00 speaker cables will benefit some percentage of the population. That said, the percentage is small so it makes little sense to push it on the majority buyer, but there is no reason to get testy about audiophiles buying equipment that benefits them. Their claims aren't "ridiculous". They are specific to their experience, while your experience/audio-acuity differs and makes such equipment ridiculous for YOU to purchase.
I've always found it funny that people tend so strongly toward universalizing their perceptions. More often than not, it's the non-audiophiles telling the audiophiles they are stupid, but on occasion I also see the audiophiles trying to get non-audiophiles to upgrade for reasons that only make sense to the audiophile.
I record/buy lossless music. I can (in double blind tests) distinguish quality up to around 320kHz (standard MP3 encoding) whereas I have a friend who considers more than 128kHz to be a waste. For him, it is. For me, it's not. How hard is that to get?
It's been done and you are correct that the number grows exceedingly low fairly quickly as the bitrate rises. The beauty of our Brave New World, however, is that the idea of a "statistically insignificant sample" is moving toward obsolescence. It's all about personalization. This was epitomized by the AllofMP3 model, which allowed the purchaser to buy music at the quality that mattered to them. There is no reason why we can't continue that trend. There is no reason to marginalize the purchaser of an intangible good or service anymore with our increased ability to serve ever more specialized products that micro-target ever smaller demographics.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
What are you talking about? No one in the article said that. Very few I know would make such a sweeping statement. What, are you just looking to extend some debate you had in your mind against a strawman American "sympathizer"?
We do. It's called Medicaid and Medicare. It is a safety net for America's poor and elderly. It gives care to those who need it most and cannot afford to pay for a premium service. Frankly, it's quite good. I have experience with the system. It's a beauracratic mess, but in the end it works. Recent changes to Medicare have caused some problems, but it's too early to see what if any concrete problems those changes might create.
Glorious Old Lady? Glad to see you are approaching your America-bashing without bias.
"Proper" is a qualitative term that is meaningless in this context. That said, I know for a fact that many Europeans would disagree with your use of the word here.
So I (who eats healthy, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, don't take stupid risks) get to pay the same as the guy who smokes 2 packs a day, drinks like a fish, and is going to cost the system easily 8 times what I will cost it. That's a great system you got there. Count me in.
The only trust issue here is your trust of what you are fed anecdotally by the media and slashodot posters instead of the facts. do some research (it's clear you haven't) and then post something intelligent.
More random insults? I'm surprised you aren't marked as more of a troll than you have been.
So do companies. Companies who run healthcare plans have a vested interest in seeing you healthy. Historically, I've not been a fan of HMO's, for instance. but sometimes the facts contradict anecdote. People who are provided care by HMO's are measurably healthier on average than those provided for by other plans. Why? HMO's, for instance, will call you if you miss a check up or scheduled appointment. They want you to stay healthy. It keeps their long term costs down. They have fairly sophisticated software micromanaging your health care. The government---your european government---doesn't. If you get sick, it actually matters to them. Not so with your government's health plan management. I agree that the free market can only carry us so far, but this is one of those cases where it has carried us farther than a governmental system can or will. Governmental oversight of these companies is good, but government control? Not so good.
You shouldn't attack things you don't understand.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
In part, yes. It is easier to design sites that are formatted as we have grown accustomed to them in the old table layout manner.
CSS, however, frees the designer from the constraints that table layout imposes. They allow for a great deal more layout freedom and moreover they make it about twice as easy to design sites that are A11y compliant (at least as per the parameters imposed by section 508).
CSS doesn't do everything well (FFS, why is centering a block element so retarded?!) but overall, it's easier to do many things with CSS than it is to do so with tables---as long as you aren't just trying to reproduce a screwed up table format layout.
Essentially, it boils down to familiarity. Developers (who are not designers) are far more accustomed to table layout processes than they are CSS layout processes, so they use tables.
Spend some time getting to know CSS. In the end, it's going to be far more beneficial to your web-dev career than a lot fo other technologies you could be picking up. Especially as A11y and 508 compliance become more important.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
I don't think so.
The government's primary responsibility is not to be efficient but to be helpful. Helping people (often taking the form of protecting us from each other, sadly) is not an efficient business. People are messy and disorganized and cannot be approached in a business-like manner. Churches don't run themselves like businesses. Believe it or not, even 'corporate' churches like CBN are striken with incredible inefficiency. Secular charities are much the same.
While I'd welcome some of the business methodologies (you mentioned a balanced budget, and I think that's a good idea) overall, the government's job isn't business-like and wouldn't be well served by someone who couldn't step outside that role.
Rumsfeld tried to run our military like a business. Look where that got us. While I appreciate his desire to see reform in military aquisition procedure (yes, I actually said something nice about him!) it only underscores the problem of treating human affairs in a business-like manner. Equipment never arrived. Soldiers were spread thin. The war is being lost. You can't apply a JIT supply chain to military affairs in that way. You can't do it with the welfare system, the police and fire departments, our public conservation works, or any of a hundred other inefficient processes that are mucked up by the irregular rhythms of humankind.
This doesn't bear on whether Bill Gates should or should not be president (though he should most certainly not!) since we have no idea how he'd approach he job. Plenty of good business men would make fine presidents becuase they recognize what I'd said. Ross Perot (that crazy little ferengi) would have been a great president, I believe. Despite his corporate background, I think he would have done well in the position.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
What effect will the Patent Commons project have on a patent assault by Microsoft? Also, will the newly formed Open Inventions Network also affect the way Microsoft approaches this issue?
I mean, both of those organizations essentially grant rights to their patents royalty free only to companies that don't sue F/OSS projects. If MS starts a suit, wouldn't they have to contend with both of these patent holding portfolios as well as the enormous portfolio of companies like IBM who have a vested interest in seeing Linux succeed?
I get the feeling (though I could be dead wrong) that MS gets far more benefit from the current ambiguity and the occasional stirring, scary statement than from actually pursuing a legal remedy.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
...that between the Linux kernel project and Microsoft Corporation, only one of those entities has been convicted (repeatedly!) of patent and copyright violation. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to guess which it is.
It suffices to say, I think the kettle just called someone black.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
With a few adjustments this is quite similar to the charter schools idea (see the NEA's view on them). In fact, I'm not against charter schools in general, nor against the voucher systems that tend to come with them---though I'm more than a bit upset at the way our President used the No Child Left Behind Act to essentially "backdoor" a voucher system into place when it wasn't a popular choice. While I happened to agree with him on this issue (a rarity), I don't like watching the Will of the People sidestepped like that. It essentially creates a scenario where every school in the nation can arbitrarily receive a failing grade (due to legal conflicts between No Child Left Behind and the IDEA laws) and thus every child in every school becomes eligible for a voucher alternative immediately. Kinda lame, even if the end result is something I think is utlimately a good thing.
The charter school idea has promise, but it'll be a few years before we see the full effects and side-effects of this system.
No problem. Sorry for the initially less friendly reply. I think my hands were typing long before my brain had moved into the "ON" position.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/