No. It should block the pages that open when you click links too. You should specifically have to allow popups that open from clicking a link on that page. AND you should have the option of popups opening a new tab instead of a new window.
I get this popup when I go to http://www.spacedaily.com/. I am using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0. This idea of "only the popups you request" (by clicking on a link) has always pissed me off. When I select the option "no popups" I mean NO POPUPS. Clicking on a link that has Javascript do a popup should just result in the taskbar saying "popup blocked".
No, you just don't go to the right sites to see this shit. Try going to http://www.spacedaily.com/ and observe absolute insane shit that FireFox still allows random web sites to do.
Maybe we could make a movement where we write and film our own shows and license them such that everyone is free to modify and redistribute them. It's not like DV cameras cost a lot of money (no more than a computer) and everyone has video editing software these days, and our desktop machines are good enough to do tv quality CG (movie quality if we use distributed networks). Where's the Free (as in freedom) Tv?
The Semantic Web is supposed to result in a question and answer interface. I type in "what percentage of Australians hold a passport?" and it combines all the knowledge it has gathered from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and gives me the answer: 50%. That's the interface, not a heirachial data shuffler, not a "categories" list. Now get on it. Jesus, the natural language processing systems from the 60s could turn an english question into a prolog statement, all you've gotta do is gather the facts for it to search from a web site. It's so painfully simple to do that I'm tempted to just start my own freakin' company and do it.
Here's the thing about a product, you actually have to have someone to sell it to. A walking robot is not a product, unless you're going to sell it to universities so they can use it as a research platform, in which case why would Honda be doing the research for them?
There is a place for pure research, but it's not in a publically listed company. Honda should be making products and thus far their progress with bi-pedal robots has been, well, pedestrian. So no, I'm not being shortsighted, I'm simply saying that Honda should be making more progress than this if they are making a product.
Yes, and spending all your time trying to make robo walk better isn't going to get us there either. This is a public company we're talking about, not a university. Honda should be doing research with the aim of making a product.
That's my point. The reason ASIMO can't do shit is because they are fiddling with walking and balancing instead of hand-eye co-ordination and speech understanding.
I wish Honda would do something with ASIMO that is actually useful. Send him to work at McDonalds (yes, I recognise the irony of spending millions of dollars to replace someone who gets paid minimum wage) or at an old folks home or something. Instead of focusing on the intricate details of "standing up" and "walking forward" why not choose something for him to do, and solve all the problems needed for him to do it. But don't invent Yet Another Bi-pedal Locomotion Technique, that problem is solved more than enough to move on to the next problem.
Parents are unqualified to raise their children. Either we force every person who becomes a parent to do a child care course or we take the children away from the parents at birth. Anything else is just a half-measure.
I understand what you are saying, but I honestly think the "hands off" approach that most schools take to violence is actually detrimental to society. It breeds people who 1) think that violence is an acceptable solution to lifes problems; or 2) expect violence to be the result of their actions and therefore keep to themselves rather than participating in society. Both are bad and can be recitified by enforcing the axiom that violence is not acceptable at an early age. Parents really should be the ones to do this, but seeing as they are clearly failing, or negligent, in their duty, I think the schools really have a responsibility to instill this. Of course, our society really doesn't admit any purpose to the school system. It's just a custom that kids go to school and there's no real definition of what they are supposed to be learning there.
If we're going to put -ly on the end of something, why not say Liberally Licensed Software? Hmm.. maybe that's not such a good idea, I think I sound a bit too much like a pirate "Ya Lilly-Livered Liberally Licensed coward!"
You know it's really really weird that you would choose the term "nanny state" to say why we shouldn't put kids under greater technologically assisted supervision. That's what a nanny does, supervise children. It doesn't make sense to put adults under such supervision, because we are not children. But, and try to follow me here, it does make sense to put children under such supervision as the actual definition of the word "nanny" suggests!
WTF? I should be able to live in society without being threatened by physical violence. As an adult, I am free to live this way by avoiding people who think it is ok to solve problems with violence. Kids being herded into public schools have no such freedom. So we can either solve this problem by giving them that freedom, or we can try to control the school environment so these anti-social dickweeds arn't around.
They're children. Surely you want to track them. It's like the big complaints people have about having cameras in schools and people monitoring them. I tell ya, when I went to school we could have done with some of those cameras. Would have put a quick stop to all the anti-social lord-of-the-flies-esq behaviour that characterizes the school years of most kids.
I think the term Open Source did serve some purpose at some point, but now it's just getting in the way. Simply because the two words "open" and "source" do not capture the whole concept of "free to modify and redistribute". Maybe we need another marketing campaign with the terms Redistributable Software but that's even more confusing.. is Shareware freely redistributable? Why yes, it is, but it's not modifiable. Maybe our marketing term should be Modifiable and Redistributable Software, oh what a big ugly mouthful that is.
Maybe it's time for the "Open Source" movement to die. After all, the founders of this movement (Eric S. Raymond, Bruce Parens, I'm lookin' at you) havn't had anything official to say about Open Source in a while (oh wait, there was that Java thing, you're ok Bruce). I thought "to reduce confusion" was what the Open Source movement set out to achieve, being that Free Software just wasn't straight forward enough for them. The result of this mess has been one person after another putting the "openness" of the source code ahead of the freedom to modify and redistribute the source code (yes, Microsoft, Sun, X11, Apache, and that worm who wrote the packet filter the OpenBSD project rewrote in a week). It's amazing to me the number of people who have no problem understanding exactly what I'm talking about when I say Free Software, compared to the number of people who are now confused about Open Source. Maybe it's the use of capital letters. Ahh, what irony that is, we could have avoided endless debates about Free Software vs Open Source if we'd just capitalized "free".
Slashdot Mirror
No. It should block the pages that open when you click links too. You should specifically have to allow popups that open from clicking a link on that page. AND you should have the option of popups opening a new tab instead of a new window.
I get this popup when I go to http://www.spacedaily.com/. I am using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0. This idea of "only the popups you request" (by clicking on a link) has always pissed me off. When I select the option "no popups" I mean NO POPUPS. Clicking on a link that has Javascript do a popup should just result in the taskbar saying "popup blocked".
No, you just don't go to the right sites to see this shit. Try going to http://www.spacedaily.com/ and observe absolute insane shit that FireFox still allows random web sites to do.
and because Virtual Reality is out Argumented Reality is out too? That's pretty pathetic.
Maybe we could make a movement where we write and film our own shows and license them such that everyone is free to modify and redistribute them. It's not like DV cameras cost a lot of money (no more than a computer) and everyone has video editing software these days, and our desktop machines are good enough to do tv quality CG (movie quality if we use distributed networks). Where's the Free (as in freedom) Tv?
Of course, I may be exaggerating.
Here's the thing about a product, you actually have to have someone to sell it to. A walking robot is not a product, unless you're going to sell it to universities so they can use it as a research platform, in which case why would Honda be doing the research for them?
There is a place for pure research, but it's not in a publically listed company. Honda should be making products and thus far their progress with bi-pedal robots has been, well, pedestrian. So no, I'm not being shortsighted, I'm simply saying that Honda should be making more progress than this if they are making a product.
Yes, and spending all your time trying to make robo walk better isn't going to get us there either. This is a public company we're talking about, not a university. Honda should be doing research with the aim of making a product.
and that would be different to a McDonalds employee how? BTW - what ass-end of the world are you in where there's cats in McDonalds.
That's my point. The reason ASIMO can't do shit is because they are fiddling with walking and balancing instead of hand-eye co-ordination and speech understanding.
It's solved enough for a robot to be able to carry a tray of food out to a waiting customer. That's what's important.
We see YABLT because bi-pedal walking is a "research area". It's seen as something that students can study so they do.
I wish Honda would do something with ASIMO that is actually useful. Send him to work at McDonalds (yes, I recognise the irony of spending millions of dollars to replace someone who gets paid minimum wage) or at an old folks home or something. Instead of focusing on the intricate details of "standing up" and "walking forward" why not choose something for him to do, and solve all the problems needed for him to do it. But don't invent Yet Another Bi-pedal Locomotion Technique, that problem is solved more than enough to move on to the next problem.
Parents are unqualified to raise their children. Either we force every person who becomes a parent to do a child care course or we take the children away from the parents at birth. Anything else is just a half-measure.
I understand what you are saying, but I honestly think the "hands off" approach that most schools take to violence is actually detrimental to society. It breeds people who 1) think that violence is an acceptable solution to lifes problems; or 2) expect violence to be the result of their actions and therefore keep to themselves rather than participating in society. Both are bad and can be recitified by enforcing the axiom that violence is not acceptable at an early age. Parents really should be the ones to do this, but seeing as they are clearly failing, or negligent, in their duty, I think the schools really have a responsibility to instill this. Of course, our society really doesn't admit any purpose to the school system. It's just a custom that kids go to school and there's no real definition of what they are supposed to be learning there.
If we're going to put -ly on the end of something, why not say Liberally Licensed Software? Hmm.. maybe that's not such a good idea, I think I sound a bit too much like a pirate "Ya Lilly-Livered Liberally Licensed coward!"
You know it's really really weird that you would choose the term "nanny state" to say why we shouldn't put kids under greater technologically assisted supervision. That's what a nanny does, supervise children. It doesn't make sense to put adults under such supervision, because we are not children. But, and try to follow me here, it does make sense to put children under such supervision as the actual definition of the word "nanny" suggests!
WTF? I should be able to live in society without being threatened by physical violence. As an adult, I am free to live this way by avoiding people who think it is ok to solve problems with violence. Kids being herded into public schools have no such freedom. So we can either solve this problem by giving them that freedom, or we can try to control the school environment so these anti-social dickweeds arn't around.
They're children. Surely you want to track them. It's like the big complaints people have about having cameras in schools and people monitoring them. I tell ya, when I went to school we could have done with some of those cameras. Would have put a quick stop to all the anti-social lord-of-the-flies-esq behaviour that characterizes the school years of most kids.
I think the term Open Source did serve some purpose at some point, but now it's just getting in the way. Simply because the two words "open" and "source" do not capture the whole concept of "free to modify and redistribute". Maybe we need another marketing campaign with the terms Redistributable Software but that's even more confusing.. is Shareware freely redistributable? Why yes, it is, but it's not modifiable. Maybe our marketing term should be Modifiable and Redistributable Software, oh what a big ugly mouthful that is.
Maybe it's time for the "Open Source" movement to die. After all, the founders of this movement (Eric S. Raymond, Bruce Parens, I'm lookin' at you) havn't had anything official to say about Open Source in a while (oh wait, there was that Java thing, you're ok Bruce). I thought "to reduce confusion" was what the Open Source movement set out to achieve, being that Free Software just wasn't straight forward enough for them. The result of this mess has been one person after another putting the "openness" of the source code ahead of the freedom to modify and redistribute the source code (yes, Microsoft, Sun, X11, Apache, and that worm who wrote the packet filter the OpenBSD project rewrote in a week). It's amazing to me the number of people who have no problem understanding exactly what I'm talking about when I say Free Software, compared to the number of people who are now confused about Open Source. Maybe it's the use of capital letters. Ahh, what irony that is, we could have avoided endless debates about Free Software vs Open Source if we'd just capitalized "free".
That sounds like a vegetarian argument. Why not just genetically engineer yourself to absorb sunlight or connect your ass to a wall socket?
Steak in a vat in your own home (with solar panels on the roof to power it) was more what I had in mind.
Amway isn't a "scam" either. I never said it was, you did!