That depends. On some sites it is not a problem on other sites the ads are a real pain and get in the way or significantly delay the page loading because the ad server is overloaded. Since I do not want to be continuously reconfiguring my browser the easiest thing for me to do is simply block all ads on all sites.
Thanks. As you see I was not aware that a lot of these browsers had developed ad blocking. I have the same question I had for the other browser advocates though: does it update the filter list centrally or do you have to grow it yourself? Having a preconfigured list is a real bonus.
Thanks. I was not aware of this feature so I will have to look at this browser. One of the key things about Firefox though is that the filter list is centrally updated by the Filterset extension. Does this also work for Omniweb or do you have to build the list by hand?
You are arguing a technicality. If you want to be pedantic then I suppose I would say that I like the extension feature of Firefox because it allows people to write extensions that block ads, stop flash, and generally make the browser do what I want which is not necessarily what the website owner wants.
6 more browsers that all do the same things the mainstream ones do.
Unless I've missed it there is one thing that none of them do as well as Firefox and that is block ads. The browser extensions like this are the one thing that, at least for me, puts Firefox head and shoulders above the rest.
Sorry but I strongly disagree. The very definition of racism is discrimination on the grounds of race. I understand that their intent was to be all inclusive but they were still racist because they decided not to support a charity based solely of racial grounds. Intent might matter for the legal definition in some countries but even that varies. For example, at least several years ago, it was illegal to practice "positive discrimination" in the EU because you were making decisions based on race and the anti-racism laws forbade it.
I'm also sorry you got modded a troll. While I disagree with you it was a fair point to make but, since I cannot use my mod points here now, all I can do is hope that the meta-moderators catch it.
That is completely wrong. You ALWAYS choose to go to war. The reason that you make that choice is because the consequences of a war is thought to be better than the consequences of not going to war but that does no, in any way, make it less of a choice. What is very worrying about robotic killing machines is that, because it seems to reduce the consequence of war they may well shift the balance and make wars more likey.
Who said anything about PTSD. What about boredom? If you are far removed from the horrors of battle you will likely take the consequences of your actions far more lightly.
This decision is already being reviewed and will likely be tossed by the Carleton Student Council.
True but from the article the reason it is being tossed is because CF affects men and women equally as well as some non-white populations. Unless I missed the apology for the racist and sexist attitudes on display?
...but it wasn't racist. They weren't discriminating against white men, they were being extremist everything-must-be-inclusive-of-everybody PC.
This is racism. They are making their decision based on race. What they were trying to do, who they were discriminating for or against matters not. Their decision was based on no other criteria than race and that is the textbook definition of racism.
There is a flip side to that coin. Machines don't think. Machines don't get PTSD and decide to go on a killing rampage. Machines don't "go rogue".
...but their programmers can. In addition you have to be very careful when programming them - if you make a mistake in the program or forget to cover some situation then the robot may be doing exactly what it is told but may still end up causing an atrocity. In effect all you are doing is replacing one set of known risks with another set of unknown ones.
There are a number of arguments against meat and whatever other cruelty to animals, but most of them center(sic) on the audience regarding animal cruelty as wrong.
I have two problems with this. First, and foremost, it is not cruel to eat animals as long as they are treated appropriately beforehand and that we don't waste as little as possible of them once slaughtered. Left to their own devices the animals we eat today would simply be eaten by other predators...and I doubt a pack of wolves will be too concerned about how they kill their prey nor will they be worried about keeping it well fed and disease free beforehand. While it is true that not all animals are appropriately treated before slaughter and consumption this is not a good reason for us all to be vegetarian any more than the existence of theft makes it a good idea give up all your personal possessions.
The second reason that this is wrong is simply because you are drawing an arbitrary line between vegetables and animals. Just because you happen to be closer to an animal and can understand it better you are still killing a plant when you pull it up to eat it so why do you not worry about its "suffering"? Why should it count as less than an animal just because you happen to be less closely related to it and cannot empathise with it?
The simple fact is that in order for us to survive we have to kill living organisms and digest them. You can if you wish draw arbitrary lines in the sand about which are "good" and which are "bad" but don't try to tell me that your arbitrary choice is somehow the right one and that if I don't agree with you I must be wrong. If the real issue is as you suggest, the ethical treatment of animals before slaughter, then please explain how pulling the gizzards out of an already dead turkey has anything to do with it. Indeed, if this really is the issue that they are concerned with then campaigning against eating all meat is really a dishonest and manipulative tactic...which would be rather ironic for a group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals given that us humans are animals too.
That postulate of relativity doesn't prevent energy from being different in different frames.
True for energy in general but for the binding energy of a proton to be different the force would need to be different and that is not allowed i.e. the energy released in a moving frame to assemble the constituents must be the same as a stationary frame. This because the binding energy IS effectively a mass (mass-energy equivalence) and so it must be invariant.
No! It is still wrong because relativistic mass is not a valid concept much like the sun orbiting the Earth is not a valid concept. Yes, you can construct a model where it seems to work for some things but fundamentally it is very, very wrong.
For "relativistic mass" to be true you would need, for example, the binding energy of the quarks in a proton to change when its moving fast...which would be in direct violation of one of the postulates of relativity: "the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames". Einstein himself used to correct people against using a varying mass. Yes, I know it can be tempting and there are several undergrad physics textbooks out there that use it but that should know better. However at a fundamental level mass is an Lorentz invariant quantity and does not change when transforming between frames. Just like epicycles relativistic mass may work in some, limited, circumstances but it is built on a wrong concept.
Defining obesity as a disability nowadays is really sickening.
I understand the sentiment and to large extend agree with it but then a thought crossed my mind. Supposing someone maimed themselves i.e. cut off a limb deliberately. Wouldn't we regard them as disabled even though the wound was self-inflicted? Arguably this might be because they are clearly mentally disturbed...but couldn't the same be said of someone who is so obese they cannot function properly (I mean we are not talking slightly overweight here).
Anything that is allowed with makeup should be allowed with Photoshop.
No, there is a difference because with makeup the person in the photo is at least aware of what is happening (even if they do not agree with it). With digital effects they can do it without the subject of the photo being aware or giving consent.
I also imagine that it is easier to spot foul play if all localised digital adjustments are unacceptable.
I would not have a problem with exposure, contrast, brightness etc. But editing a backdrop and touch ups? No way. Supposing a high ranking general had been injured - would you allow them to touch up a portrait to hide the fact? How about altering the backdrop so it looks as if, say, they were in a war zone on one particular day when instead they were back in Washington having a break?
Its true that the potential for abuse is rather limited but it is certainly not zero.
Sorry, my post was in English. My apologies for not including an Amercan translation for you, I didn't realize it would make you angry but you at least seemed to have figured it out yourself, well done!
We already have a theory of Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) based on experimental results. The problem is that the calculations it required to solve real-world situations (like what is the binding energy of a proton) are fantastically difficult. The reason is that, while the colour field of QCD is, in many ways, exactly like the electric field of QED, unlike the electric field a colour field will interact with another colour field i.e. if you have two colour charges the net colour field is not the sum of the two single charge fields, like it would be for two electric charges, but something completely new and really hard to calculate.
Hence the problem was to be able to have the required maths to solve the problem. Since there is no existing maths which can do this the only solution is to turn to the brute force numerical approximation method - and even then the problem is so hard that you have to be really smart in coming up with clever ways to make the calculation take less than a lifetime to compute. In many ways its like Deepthought only it took less that 7 million years to run and the answer should be about 938.272013(23) MeV/c2 and not 42 (unless you have a very strange choice of units).
Slashdot Mirror
That depends. On some sites it is not a problem on other sites the ads are a real pain and get in the way or significantly delay the page loading because the ad server is overloaded. Since I do not want to be continuously reconfiguring my browser the easiest thing for me to do is simply block all ads on all sites.
Thanks. As you see I was not aware that a lot of these browsers had developed ad blocking. I have the same question I had for the other browser advocates though: does it update the filter list centrally or do you have to grow it yourself? Having a preconfigured list is a real bonus.
Thanks. Same question as I had for the Omniweb post: does the list centrally update or do you have to populate it by hand?
Thanks. I was not aware of this feature so I will have to look at this browser. One of the key things about Firefox though is that the filter list is centrally updated by the Filterset extension. Does this also work for Omniweb or do you have to build the list by hand?
You are arguing a technicality. If you want to be pedantic then I suppose I would say that I like the extension feature of Firefox because it allows people to write extensions that block ads, stop flash, and generally make the browser do what I want which is not necessarily what the website owner wants.
6 more browsers that all do the same things the mainstream ones do.
Unless I've missed it there is one thing that none of them do as well as Firefox and that is block ads. The browser extensions like this are the one thing that, at least for me, puts Firefox head and shoulders above the rest.
A big part of racism is intent.
Sorry but I strongly disagree. The very definition of racism is discrimination on the grounds of race. I understand that their intent was to be all inclusive but they were still racist because they decided not to support a charity based solely of racial grounds. Intent might matter for the legal definition in some countries but even that varies. For example, at least several years ago, it was illegal to practice "positive discrimination" in the EU because you were making decisions based on race and the anti-racism laws forbade it.
I'm also sorry you got modded a troll. While I disagree with you it was a fair point to make but, since I cannot use my mod points here now, all I can do is hope that the meta-moderators catch it.
You don't choose war. War is forced upon you.
That is completely wrong. You ALWAYS choose to go to war. The reason that you make that choice is because the consequences of a war is thought to be better than the consequences of not going to war but that does no, in any way, make it less of a choice. What is very worrying about robotic killing machines is that, because it seems to reduce the consequence of war they may well shift the balance and make wars more likey.
Who said anything about PTSD. What about boredom? If you are far removed from the horrors of battle you will likely take the consequences of your actions far more lightly.
This decision is already being reviewed and will likely be tossed by the Carleton Student Council.
True but from the article the reason it is being tossed is because CF affects men and women equally as well as some non-white populations. Unless I missed the apology for the racist and sexist attitudes on display?
...but it wasn't racist. They weren't discriminating against white men, they were being extremist everything-must-be-inclusive-of-everybody PC.
This is racism. They are making their decision based on race. What they were trying to do, who they were discriminating for or against matters not. Their decision was based on no other criteria than race and that is the textbook definition of racism.
There is a flip side to that coin. Machines don't think. Machines don't get PTSD and decide to go on a killing rampage. Machines don't "go rogue".
There are a number of arguments against meat and whatever other cruelty to animals, but most of them center(sic) on the audience regarding animal cruelty as wrong.
I have two problems with this. First, and foremost, it is not cruel to eat animals as long as they are treated appropriately beforehand and that we don't waste as little as possible of them once slaughtered. Left to their own devices the animals we eat today would simply be eaten by other predators...and I doubt a pack of wolves will be too concerned about how they kill their prey nor will they be worried about keeping it well fed and disease free beforehand. While it is true that not all animals are appropriately treated before slaughter and consumption this is not a good reason for us all to be vegetarian any more than the existence of theft makes it a good idea give up all your personal possessions.
The second reason that this is wrong is simply because you are drawing an arbitrary line between vegetables and animals. Just because you happen to be closer to an animal and can understand it better you are still killing a plant when you pull it up to eat it so why do you not worry about its "suffering"? Why should it count as less than an animal just because you happen to be less closely related to it and cannot empathise with it?
The simple fact is that in order for us to survive we have to kill living organisms and digest them. You can if you wish draw arbitrary lines in the sand about which are "good" and which are "bad" but don't try to tell me that your arbitrary choice is somehow the right one and that if I don't agree with you I must be wrong. If the real issue is as you suggest, the ethical treatment of animals before slaughter, then please explain how pulling the gizzards out of an already dead turkey has anything to do with it. Indeed, if this really is the issue that they are concerned with then campaigning against eating all meat is really a dishonest and manipulative tactic...which would be rather ironic for a group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals given that us humans are animals too.
That postulate of relativity doesn't prevent energy from being different in different frames.
True for energy in general but for the binding energy of a proton to be different the force would need to be different and that is not allowed i.e. the energy released in a moving frame to assemble the constituents must be the same as a stationary frame. This because the binding energy IS effectively a mass (mass-energy equivalence) and so it must be invariant.
That's all very well, but what if they cut off a leg?
No, I'm not in marketing. I was referring to Christmas 2008, not 2009.
No! It is still wrong because relativistic mass is not a valid concept much like the sun orbiting the Earth is not a valid concept. Yes, you can construct a model where it seems to work for some things but fundamentally it is very, very wrong.
For "relativistic mass" to be true you would need, for example, the binding energy of the quarks in a proton to change when its moving fast...which would be in direct violation of one of the postulates of relativity: "the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames". Einstein himself used to correct people against using a varying mass. Yes, I know it can be tempting and there are several undergrad physics textbooks out there that use it but that should know better. However at a fundamental level mass is an Lorentz invariant quantity and does not change when transforming between frames. Just like epicycles relativistic mass may work in some, limited, circumstances but it is built on a wrong concept.
You are thinking of Easter - this is Christmas!
Defining obesity as a disability nowadays is really sickening.
I understand the sentiment and to large extend agree with it but then a thought crossed my mind. Supposing someone maimed themselves i.e. cut off a limb deliberately. Wouldn't we regard them as disabled even though the wound was self-inflicted? Arguably this might be because they are clearly mentally disturbed...but couldn't the same be said of someone who is so obese they cannot function properly (I mean we are not talking slightly overweight here).
I'm the same height and completely agree with you. We should be always entitled to sit in the emergency exit row!
Not the ones in bulkhead rows because those contain the tables since there is no row in front.
Anything that is allowed with makeup should be allowed with Photoshop.
No, there is a difference because with makeup the person in the photo is at least aware of what is happening (even if they do not agree with it). With digital effects they can do it without the subject of the photo being aware or giving consent.
I also imagine that it is easier to spot foul play if all localised digital adjustments are unacceptable.
I would not have a problem with exposure, contrast, brightness etc. But editing a backdrop and touch ups? No way. Supposing a high ranking general had been injured - would you allow them to touch up a portrait to hide the fact? How about altering the backdrop so it looks as if, say, they were in a war zone on one particular day when instead they were back in Washington having a break?
Its true that the potential for abuse is rather limited but it is certainly not zero.
Sorry, my post was in English. My apologies for not including an Amercan translation for you, I didn't realize it would make you angry but you at least seemed to have figured it out yourself, well done!
We already have a theory of Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) based on experimental results. The problem is that the calculations it required to solve real-world situations (like what is the binding energy of a proton) are fantastically difficult. The reason is that, while the colour field of QCD is, in many ways, exactly like the electric field of QED, unlike the electric field a colour field will interact with another colour field i.e. if you have two colour charges the net colour field is not the sum of the two single charge fields, like it would be for two electric charges, but something completely new and really hard to calculate.
Hence the problem was to be able to have the required maths to solve the problem. Since there is no existing maths which can do this the only solution is to turn to the brute force numerical approximation method - and even then the problem is so hard that you have to be really smart in coming up with clever ways to make the calculation take less than a lifetime to compute. In many ways its like Deepthought only it took less that 7 million years to run and the answer should be about 938.272013(23) MeV/c2 and not 42 (unless you have a very strange choice of units).