I cycle with in-ears, and that certainly doesn't help me hear what going on better (in-ears also don't keep my ears warm). It's really a bad idea, and you have to drive super-carefully, taking care to use your eyes that much more. But damn, it's so much fun.
I also walk around with in-ears, and I don't feel particularly endangered. Really, walking around in a German city is so relaxed/boring, I can well imagine doing it while both listening to music and reading a book. Sometimes I wish it was a bit more anarchic. Navigating the traffic in places like China is much more... invigorating -- until it's not!
Incidently, people who cross red lights when you're approaching (and have the light) are annoying whether or not they're wearing headphones. I often cross red lights (and the "hostility" of red lights against pedestrians is a pet peeve), but obviously I don't do it if a car or bike is approaching. Which I best can determine with my eyes, even if I am wearing in-ears...
So, not surprisingly their accident statistics are nothing to shout about. Austria, Holland (which has MUCH much more cars per linear meter of road on the road), etc have much better ones.
Road deaths per million population: Austria: 76 Germany: 51 Netherlands: 44
For what it's worth, I can relate to your experience in bad weather, it's amazing the way some people will drive despite it. You can always take refuge behind some truck on the right lane and cruise along at 90 kph.;)
That doesn't really sound possible. I'm sure that modern cars can remain efficient fine at fairly high speeds, but 6l/100km at 220kph? I don't believe it.
The German highway system may be safer than other German roads, but it's not safer because of the higher speed limit (or, for 25% of them, no speed limit). You can't really compare a long-distance road network to other kinds of roads. Comparing long distance road networks of different locations is fine by me.
Not sure what your point is. The master password function in Firefox is optional. If you don't use it, you don't have to remember a password. If you do use it, you do have to remember a password, since obviously Firefox doesn't store it anywhere.
Firefox can optionally use a master password to encrypt the other stored passwords. You have to enter the master password once per session (or, if you prefer, every time you access the store). This doesn't prevent a determined attacker who has root from getting those passwords (he could use a keylogger to get the master password, etc.). But it does mean that sheer physical access is not enough, so if someone copies your Firefox profile, or restores it from an old HD, the passwords still would need to be decrypted. If I understand correctly, using the Gnome login keychain is just as safe as the Firefox master password, it's stored in an encrypted fashion and decrypted at login (using the user's password, I guess?).
Yes, converts in the same way that I can get you to make a sizable donation to my account -- if I hold you at gunpoint. Religious follower converted by the sword are probably not the most faithful bunch. Though perhaps following generations are, if they actually stick to the enforced religion, so maybe it's more effective than I think. I'm not sure how popular the practice has actually been, incidently. It'd be interesting to see raw historical data on those issues, minus all the rhetoric.
Okay, but now we've moved from using violence in a political context to gain followers to a psychological condition individuals suffer from after certain events.
The original statement in question was "Committing violence is never the way to gain true followers.", I don't see Stockholm Syndrome being relevant to that, and I don't think the population of the near and middle east were thinking they had it coming when the crusades (which GP brought up) hit them.
I didn't know. It's readily available in both German and English, though. Not sure why Gutenberg doesn't have it since they do have other stuff, maybe there is some legal reason for not including it. I admit I've only read the first few chapters, though, it really is quite heavy reading -- it takes an effort --, though it has aged well.
"Family size declined between 1800 and 1900 from 7.0 to 3.5 children." Far fetch from 19. Not sure if it was ever significantly higher than in 1800, either. Seems reasonable that the high mortality rate of both child and mother would lead to a "natural" cap in historical times. (Although I was surprised to see that Wikipedia states that the historical maternal death rate was only 1 in 100 and actually increased in the 18th century.)
There is really nothing particularly atheist about his, eh, manifesto. He doesn't mention god at all, and he mentions religion only once, condemning civilization and "its disgusting religious-cultural roots." This doesn't say much about religion or spirituality in general, and less about the existence of a god. I guess it makes him, if anything, a (radical) primitivist.
Well, it stands to reason that violence is not going to gain you followers among the recipients of the sharp end of the stick. But there is no doubt that violence and ostracism against another group can unite people under a banner, for many reasons: shared guilt, shared relief at belonging to the "victor" and not the victim, other social group phenomena. Those don't really come into play in this specific instance, though. And of course in your examples, there were numerous other factors involved besides violence; I'm not sure if violence was the driving force in any/all of those cases. I agree that GPs statement was sweeping and incorrect, as sweeping statements often are.
The sanity of a few of his points along with the insanity of most of them makes his manifesto such a fun read (if you can blend out the whole hostage-taking business). "Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order." That last bit just cracks me up.
Also the book he refers to ("channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael" pages 207-212") is described on Wikipedia: "My Ishmael is a sequel to the novel Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Its plot revolves around a gorilla named Ishmael who describes his philosophy regarding tribal society to Julie, a twelve-year-old girl." This might be a good political book or not (I have no idea), but in terms of analytical quality and intellectual depth I assume it's not quite in the same league as Das Kapital.
There were apparently a number of deletion discussions on that template. The one you linked to was completely in favour of keeping it and actually resulted in a speedy keep. Much of the discussion apparently happened in several other places. This appears to be the TfD that deleted the template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_8#Template:Spoiler
Regardless of the person who removed the spoiler template, this seems to be a fairly straightforward edit. His edit comment referred to the guideline on spoilers: "Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers."
This is just a guideline, so it's not like it's totally set in stone, and I have no idea if the guideline is representative of the general opinion; however it seems fairly reasonable to me: you really would expect an encyclopedia article to contain spoilers in the plot summary, particularly since pretty much anything can be considered a spoiler (personally, I'm very picky about it). That said, I think the article summary, that is the introductory paragraph before the table of contents, should be free of significant spoilers.
The video included in TFA looks nice, though not revolutionary. My first thought was that it would probably be easy enough to implement a client-side version of it -- basically refresh the search page every so often while the user is manipulating the query. Of course you'd have to do it in an AJAXy fashion so as not to interrupt the typing in the input field, which might be difficult. That requirement could be dropped if the user enters the query within the browser UI -- come to think of it, it's fairly rare that I use the input field in the Google HTML to enter queries, and I never hit the Google front page.
Slashdot Mirror
I cycle with in-ears, and that certainly doesn't help me hear what going on better (in-ears also don't keep my ears warm). It's really a bad idea, and you have to drive super-carefully, taking care to use your eyes that much more. But damn, it's so much fun.
I also walk around with in-ears, and I don't feel particularly endangered. Really, walking around in a German city is so relaxed/boring, I can well imagine doing it while both listening to music and reading a book. Sometimes I wish it was a bit more anarchic. Navigating the traffic in places like China is much more... invigorating -- until it's not!
Incidently, people who cross red lights when you're approaching (and have the light) are annoying whether or not they're wearing headphones. I often cross red lights (and the "hostility" of red lights against pedestrians is a pet peeve), but obviously I don't do it if a car or bike is approaching. Which I best can determine with my eyes, even if I am wearing in-ears...
So, not surprisingly their accident statistics are nothing to shout about. Austria, Holland (which has MUCH much more cars per linear meter of road on the road), etc have much better ones.
Road deaths per million population:
Austria: 76
Germany: 51
Netherlands: 44
For what it's worth, I can relate to your experience in bad weather, it's amazing the way some people will drive despite it. You can always take refuge behind some truck on the right lane and cruise along at 90 kph. ;)
Well, the law is not called Rechtsfahrgebot (literally, commandment) for nothing.
That doesn't really sound possible. I'm sure that modern cars can remain efficient fine at fairly high speeds, but 6l/100km at 220kph? I don't believe it.
The German highway system may be safer than other German roads, but it's not safer because of the higher speed limit (or, for 25% of them, no speed limit). You can't really compare a long-distance road network to other kinds of roads. Comparing long distance road networks of different locations is fine by me.
Not sure what your point is. The master password function in Firefox is optional. If you don't use it, you don't have to remember a password. If you do use it, you do have to remember a password, since obviously Firefox doesn't store it anywhere.
Yes, that is what they are (finally) doing with Chrome 7.
The decryption password isn't stored anywhere. You have to remember it. But remembering one password beats remembering 10, 20 or 100.
Firefox can optionally use a master password to encrypt the other stored passwords. You have to enter the master password once per session (or, if you prefer, every time you access the store). This doesn't prevent a determined attacker who has root from getting those passwords (he could use a keylogger to get the master password, etc.). But it does mean that sheer physical access is not enough, so if someone copies your Firefox profile, or restores it from an old HD, the passwords still would need to be decrypted. If I understand correctly, using the Gnome login keychain is just as safe as the Firefox master password, it's stored in an encrypted fashion and decrypted at login (using the user's password, I guess?).
... so you can also put it in the oven for 2 to 3 minutes at 220C.
Yes, converts in the same way that I can get you to make a sizable donation to my account -- if I hold you at gunpoint. Religious follower converted by the sword are probably not the most faithful bunch. Though perhaps following generations are, if they actually stick to the enforced religion, so maybe it's more effective than I think. I'm not sure how popular the practice has actually been, incidently. It'd be interesting to see raw historical data on those issues, minus all the rhetoric.
Okay, but now we've moved from using violence in a political context to gain followers to a psychological condition individuals suffer from after certain events.
The original statement in question was "Committing violence is never the way to gain true followers.", I don't see Stockholm Syndrome being relevant to that, and I don't think the population of the near and middle east were thinking they had it coming when the crusades (which GP brought up) hit them.
I didn't know. It's readily available in both German and English, though. Not sure why Gutenberg doesn't have it since they do have other stuff, maybe there is some legal reason for not including it. I admit I've only read the first few chapters, though, it really is quite heavy reading -- it takes an effort --, though it has aged well.
"Family size declined between 1800 and 1900 from 7.0 to 3.5 children." Far fetch from 19. Not sure if it was ever significantly higher than in 1800, either. Seems reasonable that the high mortality rate of both child and mother would lead to a "natural" cap in historical times. (Although I was surprised to see that Wikipedia states that the historical maternal death rate was only 1 in 100 and actually increased in the 18th century.)
There is really nothing particularly atheist about his, eh, manifesto. He doesn't mention god at all, and he mentions religion only once, condemning civilization and "its disgusting religious-cultural roots." This doesn't say much about religion or spirituality in general, and less about the existence of a god. I guess it makes him, if anything, a (radical) primitivist.
I'd watch a Discovery Channel game show based on Time Cube!
Well, it stands to reason that violence is not going to gain you followers among the recipients of the sharp end of the stick. But there is no doubt that violence and ostracism against another group can unite people under a banner, for many reasons: shared guilt, shared relief at belonging to the "victor" and not the victim, other social group phenomena. Those don't really come into play in this specific instance, though. And of course in your examples, there were numerous other factors involved besides violence; I'm not sure if violence was the driving force in any/all of those cases. I agree that GPs statement was sweeping and incorrect, as sweeping statements often are.
It works great for spreading democracy, though!! Oh, wait...
It does sound like a fairly typical Slashdot post, doesn't it? Typical replies would urge the author to move to Digg...
The sanity of a few of his points along with the insanity of most of them makes his manifesto such a fun read (if you can blend out the whole hostage-taking business). "Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order." That last bit just cracks me up.
Also the book he refers to ("channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael" pages 207-212") is described on Wikipedia: "My Ishmael is a sequel to the novel Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Its plot revolves around a gorilla named Ishmael who describes his philosophy regarding tribal society to Julie, a twelve-year-old girl." This might be a good political book or not (I have no idea), but in terms of analytical quality and intellectual depth I assume it's not quite in the same league as Das Kapital.
There were apparently a number of deletion discussions on that template. The one you linked to was completely in favour of keeping it and actually resulted in a speedy keep. Much of the discussion apparently happened in several other places. This appears to be the TfD that deleted the template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_8#Template:Spoiler
Regardless of the person who removed the spoiler template, this seems to be a fairly straightforward edit. His edit comment referred to the guideline on spoilers: "Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers."
This is just a guideline, so it's not like it's totally set in stone, and I have no idea if the guideline is representative of the general opinion; however it seems fairly reasonable to me: you really would expect an encyclopedia article to contain spoilers in the plot summary, particularly since pretty much anything can be considered a spoiler (personally, I'm very picky about it). That said, I think the article summary, that is the introductory paragraph before the table of contents, should be free of significant spoilers.
The video included in TFA looks nice, though not revolutionary. My first thought was that it would probably be easy enough to implement a client-side version of it -- basically refresh the search page every so often while the user is manipulating the query. Of course you'd have to do it in an AJAXy fashion so as not to interrupt the typing in the input field, which might be difficult. That requirement could be dropped if the user enters the query within the browser UI -- come to think of it, it's fairly rare that I use the input field in the Google HTML to enter queries, and I never hit the Google front page.
It is American custom to regret needless death, even if you don't agree with, or like, the victims.
... as long as they're famous and/or rich. Otherwise, whatever.
LaTeX: letting you focus on the content so that others can focus on the pretty typography!