Once again you have completely avoided the issue while posting an affronted and snide reply. Let's recap:
1. Excusing your pejorative armchair psychology as informative is pathetic. If you're going to insult someone, own up to it. If not, don't hide behind big words and pretend you're doing something you aren't.
Psychology involves more than mere observation. If I had started drawing arbitrary conclusions about the reason for your apparent arrogance, conceitedness and inability to address arguments proving you wrong, then you could have become upset with me. However, trying to define as pejorative something as simple as an observation of your personality based on several comments you have made (an observation independently verified by another person I have spoken to) only serves to demonstrate your inflated sense of self-importance. You appear to be that type of person which exaggerates the actions of others when you perceive them as inflicting on your own, special ego, and then cries foul over it--rather like many large, manopolistic corporations that will go unnamed.
2. I believe words mean things. I belive in objective reality and objective truth. I believe there is a difference between right and wrong, good and bad, and even between bad and worse. Most English professors don't. MLA is held hostage by a bunch of fools, who are unfortunately turning generations of liberal arts majors into similar fools. Telling me to ask one of these bullshit peddlers for their opinion on the meaning of a particular word is pointless.
Two points here. Firstly, I'm glad we've cleared up the issue of whether words can have a definite meaning. Since you agree they do, we can perhaps get back to the topic at hand, which is defining the actual meaning of "terrorist"--an issue you have consistently avoided in favour of quibbling over trivialities.
Secondly, since you have not even attempted to give evidence of your own profession or qualifications, I am assuming you have no formal experience or training in the field of the English language. Subsequently, pontificating on how the opinions of people who have studied this exact field for many years are foolish bullshit is not only meaningless but, one could say, pejorative. You're not the first person I've met who believes their personal opinion is some kind of absolute truth, outweighing the beliefs of experts, but your laughable conviction is still amazing.
3. Appealing to authority is an invalid reasoning technique. If you want to appeal to authority, then I appeal to myself as the ultimate authority on every topic, and declare myself right and you wrong. See how easy that was?
In fact, as we are taught in journalism and critical thinking--topics dealing with hard facts and logic--appealing to authority is only a logical fallacy when that authority has no standing in the field being discussed. Your logic here is so broken that I'm beginning to re-evaluate my belief that you're not a troll. The example you give is amusing, though disingenuous at best; appealing to yourself as the ultimate authority on anything is obviously an invalid argumentative technique since you are clearly not an authority on everything (unless you're God, in which case why couldn't you just say so?). However, if you were a C++ programmer of twenty years, appealing to yourself as an authority on C++ programming would be quite valid.
You appear intent on not only avoiding the actual topic of this discussion, but also contradicting yourself wherever possible. If, as you say in your latest post, appealing to yourself as an authority is an invalid reasoning technique, then clearly your initial argument that terrorists only attack civilian targets is invalid as well, since the only evidence you give to justify this definition is your own opinion. Incredibly though, you nonetheless argue over the definition of terrorism by simultaneously asserting that you, as an authority, are correct but that my own references are not. This double-standard is revoked in the next post when you say that appealing to yourself as an authority is invalid--apparently negating your former argument. Evidently you now do not believe that any authority can be considered valid. Which is it?
I will assume that your most recent post is what you actually believe, and that your other posts were some kind of a mistake. This is interesting because, since appeals to authority cannot be made and we cannot decide who holds the authoritative definition, you must believe that meaning cannot be defined--yet this is something you explicity disagreed with in your most recent post. It also forces you into the position of accepting semantic relativism, which you say is a sign of moral relativism, which in turn is a sign of a spoiled and lazy mind. Indeed, judging from the maze of circuitous and contradictory logic you are trying to use, I would suggest this is an excellent description in some cases.
It is fascinating to me that you seem to be dismissing the existence of experts and thinkers. I am forced to wonder why anyone continues to draw upon hundreds of years of human experience when you are here to help us out with the arbitrary assertion of your opinion. Since I am clearly unable to prove my point through established references that any sane person would be forced to accept, and there appears to be no possibility of retrieving the emaciated carcass of the initial debate from the tangled web of reasoning you trapped it in, there apparently isn't any point in continuing this discussion.
The referenced comment was not a personal attack; it was an observation. I can understand how you would interpret it otherwise, but my intention was to inform rather than insult.
You keep quoting other people and ignoring common sense. That's OK.
Where did I quote anyone, unless you consider providing references to support my argument "quoting"? If you consider these to be invalid because they're not my own opinion, but the opinion of many people who have spent a great deal of time studying linguistics, there is nothing further I can do. Add "common sense" to the list of words/phrases we disagree on the meaning of.
Anyone who considers anything said by English professors as proof of anything should get no respect. Heck, most English professors deny the concept of "meaning". It's all just subjective, post-modern, deconstructionist. There's no truth, just interpretation. So since it's all just interpretation, how can I rely on them as an authority on anything?
I am not attempting to provide proof of anything. I am suggesting that you speak to people who actually know something about the topic you are arguing on (linguistics, semantics and meaning) before trying to contradict at least four independent and identical definitions of a word, from four highly reputable sources acknowledged as authorities on the matter. As a writer, I have some personal experience in these areas myself; how about you? Subjectivism does not come into it; there is always an accepted subjectivity to the interpretation of language. That doesn't change hard facts, which you have consistently ignored in your responses to my posts.
It is interesting to me how your most recent post--which appears to try to refute the idea of objective meaning--appears to directly contradict your parent post, in which you are clearly arguing over an exact definition ("This is why George Washington wasn't a terrorist, but he was a freedom fighter"). Is semantic relativism only applicable when it suits you?
Come to that, is semantic relativism the sign of a spoiled and lazy mind?
When you reply, could you please try to address the key points of my arguments and either refute them or acquiesce to them, instead of making snide and counter-productive remarks about things that are meaningless to the issue at hand and ignoring everything else I have to say? It appears you are keen to make much of my ability to use references in support of my arguments, yet wholly unable to address the arguments themselves.
Okay, I apologise. I shouldn't have been influenced into depreciating the validity of my post with a personal attack. I was also wrong about you; you don't appear to be a troll.
You're just a narrow-minded, outspoken and arrogant person reacting childishly to a challenge to your ideas. In my experience you are by no means alone, and I've been flamed by too many like you to take offence. I'd rather try to point out that you're twisting the facts to suit y
our narrow worldview. The definition I gave of a terrorist is quite specific: a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The definition provided by dictionary.com has the same emphasis on individualism: one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. Terrorism itself is defined as the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments (WordNet, Princeton University). Chambers supports this. If you feel any of these dictionaries are invalid, Jon, perhaps you need to speak to some English professors at the nearest university or technology institute.
Clearly, acts of terrorism are most often directed toward civilians and civilian property, and obviously a government can engage in acts of terrorism. Genererally, however, they engage in acts of war which are--contrary to your arbitrary and unreferenced definition--completely separate from terrorism. War, as described by dictionary.com and confirmed by Oxford, is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The purpose of war is not to intimidate or coerce a society or government, but to destroy or control that society and government's assets to the point that they can no longer retaliate against you. Terrorism, by contrast, is arbitrary and unannounced, involving relatively small groups officially unsanctioned people whose primary goal is to intimidate and coerce. War is governed by certain rules; hence there are such things as war crimes. For example, bombing civilian targets is not considered acceptable under the rules of engagement, nor is denying passage to medics on missions of mercy. The fact that these are both activities engaged in by terrorists does not define people who engage in these acts as terrorists. You're confusing correlation with causality--a common mistake of people like you, whether it be deliberate or not.
As a practical example, let me use the most obvious situation: September 11. Two targets were attacked; the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. If we were to assume that the aeroplanes used were not loaded with civilians, by your definition the attack on the Pentagon would not be considered a terrorist act. However, since the people who committed the act are defined as terrorists, your definition would be in contradiction of itself. Clearly the attack on the Pentagon can also be defined as an act of war, since the Pentagon is a military target despite the fair number of civilians who work there--civilians nearly always work in military targets, and often there are many more civilians located in viable military targets such as factories than there are military personnel. Having read some of your other comments in this thread, I know that you understand these civilians are considered valid targets.
I would suggest you re-examine your ideas. That a terrorist can loosely be defined in the colloquial as someone who attacks civilian targets does not mean this is the actual definition of a terrorist. There is, I think you will agree, a distinction between a criminal and a terrorist, just as there is a distinction between an army and a terrorist organisation. I am assuming you are a resident of the US, so I can understand your confusion. Your government and judiciary are currently trying to twist the definition of terrorism to suit their own agendas; something I'm sure you'll have seen much discussion of on Slashdot since hackers are prime candidates under this new regime.
If you have not yet realised the quite simple truth of the quote I mentioned--that the wise believe themselves to be fools, and the fools believe themselves wise--deciding which category you fall into is a simple matter I leave up to you.
Regarding your assertion on right and wrong in slums, I would suggest your example is flawed since the conditions there are not conducive to any kind of philosophical discourse, both intellectually and pragmatically. I would also need some kind of evidence that you are experienced on the matter before being willing to discuss it further, since I am well familiar with the topic, having been raised in Cape Town,.za.
Unresolvable arguments about morality aside, may I suggest that in future you favour re-examining your ideas, over writing hot-headed and intellectually vacuous replies that only serve to damage your own credibility? Not only would it put you in a stronger position, but it would lend more validity to the debate itself.
In terms of "balance", I had always assumed that Anakin was always meant to be a proponent of the Dark Side. In Episode 1 there are a great many Jedis, and apparently not a lot of people sitting on the other side of the Force. Hence, it is unbalanced toward the Light Side. When Anakin goes postal, the balance is restored by making Light and Dark equal.
Dunno, I could be wrong. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, so I don't know everything there is to know. I just always felt that the Force was independent of human politics.
Your analogy is flawed. The definition of a freedom fighter depends on which side you're on, not what their actions are. Saying that a terrorist is someone who attacks specifically civilian targets is disengenuous, and something I'd expect of the Bush administration or a Slashdot troll (the parent could be either or both). Terrorists will naturally favour civilian targets because it is the easiest way to achieve the goals defined in the definitions I just provided, however it is not a requirement of the definition. I wouldn't even suggest that terrorists with worthy goals don't target civilians, because that depends largely on the situation.
As Dr. Spork said, until you define "terrorism" shut the fuck up.
Incidentally, moral relativism tends to be the sign of an intelligent mind uncertain and doubtful of the uncompromising opinions imposed on it by a lazy and spoiled society. As D John Tennant put it, The difference between those who are wise and those who are not is that the wise believe themselves to be fools [ie, are doubtful of the certainty of the values they themselves hold], and the fools believe themselves to be wise [ie require something other than themselves to classify as foolish, such as moral relativism, since by their definition a wise person should not have such deep doubts about anything].
...but I agree with the sentiment. This article on Salon says things better than I could, and this one covers the values put forward in Star Wars pretty well.
disclaimer: I specifically address writing in this post, however I believe the concepts are equally applicable to moving image and sound.
Fan fiction is probably one of the most interesting and creative parts of any franchise. I'm sure I'm not the only writer who started my career with a novel set in an existing universe (Star Trek in my case).
Having created a fairly complex science fiction series of my own called Raváj, I know that in one sense I wouldn't be terribly keen on having other people take it and write their own stories about it. It's a case of feeling that I'm the only one who really understands the universe enough, and knows the characters well enough to write about it. I wouldn't want people to do something with Raváj that I feel "isn't right". And, to a small extent, yes it feels a little threatening.
But, on the other hand, I would strongly encourage anyone who liked Raváj to create fan-fiction based on it if they felt inclined. Writers will often create their own characters (as I did in my Star Trek novella) rather than using existing ones, because it just feels better. And if they decide to use the existing characters out of convenience, or because they want to start off slow, they're unlikely to do anything too terrible (although of course you'll always get the "romantics" who commit complete character-rape for the sake of silly, impossible relationships). And so what if they do? I don't have to like the fan-fiction that's written for it to be liked by others.
The natural feeling of possessiveness, at least in my case, is strongly overruled by the interest in what other people would do with Raváj, and my belief in freedom of speech (actually Raváj is copyleft for this reason). Often you gain some insight into your own creation by seeing how other people view it. And besides, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I think he's an untalented writer who got a lucky break. Now don't get me wrong; I have nothing at all against untalented writers, as long as they enjoy what they write and they're earnest about it. Everyone has a right to do what they enjoy, even if most people think it's crap (and obviously most people don't think Star Wars is crap; indeed, I quite enjoy it for its entertainment value). I just have issues when such people won't let others do the same thing. Once ideas ("intellectual property" if you will) are put on paper, on a screen or whatever, they become part of the thought processes of everyone who is exposed to them. They become something larger than the sum of their parts, and it's ridiculous to try to censor how people wish to develop them just because you were the initial creator. Certainly the creator should be able to get some reward for their own effort, be it money or simple recognition, but I don't believe that any book someone writes set in Raváj is mine, just as I don't believe that anyone who creates their own chair after seeing a chair I created should pay me for it.
Of course, prickly questions get raised by trademarks, but since this is a competition, I don't think that's applicable. Lucas is a greedy bastard with little respect for the values of a true artist--at least, where a "true artist" is someone who cares about art. I don't know if that's how an artist is defined any more. Seems like money has become the focus everywhere.
Puhlease. Who wouldn't want to be healthier, stronger, faster, smarter, wiser? Who wouldn't want their children to have all of the benefits that they could muster?
Your naivity is evident. How do you propose using bioengineering to become wiser? And, assuming you take your question about children to the logical not-so-extreme a la Gattaca, what right do you have to determine your child's abilities and, possibly, career path?
Perhaps EULAs should not be so much found automatically invalid as invalidated only if they violate consitutional rights, or some template of what is considered reasonable?
No...what we need to do is enforce a fair system that doesn't discriminate against sites based on their content.
I'm all for a gradual enforcement of.com,.edu etc (it would have to be gradual because it's such a huge process, and it could badly affect a lot of sites if it was suddenly pushed into effect). What I'd really like to see, however, is a vigorous enforcement of country TLDs. I think it's ridiculous that the personal website of some guy called James Martin in the US can have a.com domain, but the website of an international company called James Martin in Australia has to have jamesmartin.com.au. If it's international, give it a.com,.edu,.net or whatever. If it's not, give them a.com.au,.net.de or.edu.us.
I don't understand this idea where all US sites get international TLDs. Some backwater university in the US is somehow important to everyone in the world and gets cambridge.edu, while Cambridge University in England must be cam.ac.uk just because it's in a country that doesn't "own the internet"? Yes, I know, I'm ignoring the difference in TLD in this case, but I'm sure there are numerous others.
...is garbage. I'm a bit disappointed in the standard of writing for the Herald, considering it's the largest newspaper in this country. Not only does the article not examine many sides of the issue, such as how many people are using Kazaa enough to be considered "vampires" (please, what a ridiculous term; this isn't even an editorial, it's a personal rant--stop throwing your toys out the cot Burton) and what Telecom's profit margins are on the service, but it blatantly omits several key points that turn the article into little more than fud.
For example, Burton says in the article that he sometimes gets as little as 0.02 kiBps on Kazaa, and an average of less than 1 kiBps. Erm, entry for Duh Magazine, anyone? I mean, I'm only on dialup so I can't speak for 128k Jetstart, but I regularly get less than 1 kiBps even when my connection is completely idle. It's a huge p2p network; it's invariably pretty slow. Sure, the average he states does seem a bit low, and perhaps Telecom is throttling bandwidth a bit, but the range of download speeds he states (if we are to take his word; I see no actual figures) seem to indicate that there's something more at work that simply that. Assuming that sometimes bandwidth is throttled more and less, it's still disingenuous to suggest that the only cause for such slow downloads is due to Telecom.
I also find it ridiculous that he suggests, "to be consistent Xtra [Telecom's ISP branch] should be limiting bandwidth used by Microsoft Update and Messenger software which act as servers too." Microsoft update is a necessary feature for many people, and neither it nor MSM, ICQ or IRC is going to be sucking anywhere near the bandwidth that filesharing apps do. This is either just a completely skewed viewpoint, or plain ignorance. In my view it's the latter, since Burton (the Herald IT editor) doesn't seem to even know enough to differentiate between GB (gigabytes) and Gb (gigabits).
I'm no fan of Telecom. I hate them; they're manopolistic and have extremely poor service. But this isn't a valid reason to attack them. They state in the users' contract that running servers (incidentally, I question that webservers running on their service would account for even one hundredth of the bandwidth that p2p does, although Burton seems to imply otherwise) of any kind is unacceptable. Personally, while I think it would be courteous for Telecom to inform their customers that they will actively throttle p2p and server applications (and no, I don't think messenger programs can be classified as "servers" Mr Burton), I don't see how it's a requirement on their part, or a breach of contract as Burton suggests. If you're doing something with their service that you've agreed not to, I can't see how you can complain if they quietly ensure you can no longer do that thing.
IANALawyer, so I can't speak for the legality of my opinion, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone with a more solid understanding of the technicalities.
Re:Well, I would agree with most of that there...
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Until you learn that you have to not only take the 'dangerous end' of the weapon away from the enemy, but you have to take your trigger hand off of the grip and trigger to reload it. It takes two hands and more time. Also its nearly impossible to reload easily while laying down to fire, and soldiers do that A LOT. Also a bullpup exposes more head and shoulders around a corner when firing.
So these bullpup guns are bad, and the M16 type design is good? Okay...but when why is the FN-P90, a bullpup design, replacing the MP5 (an M16-type weapon) in the US Airforce (don't know about Army)?
I actually don't see why you'd need to point the muzzle away from your target during reloading. Depending how you hold the weapon, it seems that it would be sometimes easier to reload while pointing forward, and sometimes more difficult, than the M16. Likewise, assuming a good design, I don't see why you'd need two hands, or more time. Lying down to fire (sorry, in the rest of the world we understand the distinction between a verb and a past participle) would seem to be easier, since you've got no magazine hanging out the bottom and can streamline the gun against your shoulder. And once again, assuming a decent design, I can't see why you'd need to expose more head and shoulders when firing around a corner. You don't have to hold the weapon against your shoulder to fire.
I've seen these things used very competently by actors. I'd be surprised if real soldiers had more difficulty with them, despite more strenous and difficult circumstances.
You also forgot to mention that bullpup designs have longer muzzles, greater magazine capacity and are generally more lightweight. For example, compare the P90 to the M16. The P90 weighs 3.0 kg loaded, has a 50-round magazine and a muzzle velocity of 715 m/s unless subsonic rounds are required, where a 304 m/s bullet can be used. It has a cyclic rate of fire of 900 rpm and its 5.56 mm rounds can piece level-3 body armour at 200 m with a maximum range of 400 m. It's also extremely easy to clean (four minutes), has a built-in supressor and laser site.
The M16 weighs 3.99 kg loaded, has a 30-round magazine and a muzzle velocity of 853 m/s. Its cyclic rate of fire is 800 rpm and its 5.56 mm rounds have a maximum range of 360 m despite its greater muzzle velocity (I couldn't find the effective range in the time I felt like spending). As is also fairly obvious, the M16 is a very long and bulky weapon (a metre long), while the P90 is compact and streamlined and precisely half the length.
I was under the impression that these weapons were used under different circumstances. One is a rifle, the other a submachinegun. Nonetheless, you could check your facts before applying gross generalisations. Your entire post comes across "patriotic" rubbish demonstrating an arrogant Usian viewpoint that might is right. Everyone knows the US has the most advanced military force in the world, and most people realise that this does not always guarantee victory. Why are you getting so uptight trying to prove it does? Is a country's worth measured by its firepower?
I thought the title was intended ironically...
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...but apparently I was wrong. I couldn't help but grind my teeth when reading this article. It seemed to capture so perfectly what makes the US not only unpopular in other countries, but hated as well. The quote at the end of the article sums it up brilliantly:
"On the other hand, Washington's war wonks don't seem actively oppressive, bloody-handed, or evil. Old Glory hangs all over town in its riveted incarnation as the 9/11 battle flag, but there are no jackboot parades or martyr cults. Let's face it, the world might do much worse."
Leave that mod button alone for a sec--I'm trying to present an honest viewpoint, not troll. I don't hate the US. But this smug, presumtuous attitude is a problem. I agree that there must be measures in place to stop factions like the Taleban from damaging our own society. But I believe this should be something that is done through international cooperation. A single country cannot assign itself as judge, jury and executioner simply because its the most powerful. When people do that, they're called bullies.
The article seems to take the attitude that the "Usian way" is the "right way"; that it's just fine for the US to target whomever they please in order to ensure their own safety. You can't build a "New World Order" by simply crushing anyone who disagrees with you. And if you're on the side that would benefit from such a New World Order, you should probably be concerned about how your way of life is built, and who will be the next target after all the opposition is gone (hint: the population of this New World Order).
Once again, please don't misunderstand. I don't mean to bash the US; I would like to question the article itself for assuming that the world must go along with the US or be beaten into submission, because to me that's what it seems to say. The problem is primarily with the leaders, who are people apparently intoxicated with their own power and completely without the wisdom or responsibility to use it with restraint; and also with the population, who are apathetic to the attitude their leaders hold as long as their easy way of life continues.
Now, I'm not saying that the US is without cause for its actions. I don't want to make any judgements on who is in the right in specific instances. But the reckless attitude of "Global Cop" put forward in the article, as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, is something that is heavily, heavily resented, and not just by radical Middle-Eastern parties. I don't feel I speak for myself alone. As a New Zealander and former South African I know that what I'm saying is a fairly prevalent viewpoint in both those countries. One only need watch TV to hear Bush commenting on the Israeli activities of the last few days: words to the effect of "I am not going to put up with this." Perhaps to people in the US these sound like strong words, but to people in other countries they sound like the words of a spoiled man with no real understanding of what he's talking about, assuming that the power he has gives him some right to dictate the actions of other countries. Of course I'm not saying that Sharon is right or that Bush is wrong--I agree with Bush's intent, but not his conviction that whatever he wants another country to do must happen, however true that is.
This attitude is what I see in the article. I imagine I'll be heavily downmodded for this post, since this is a Usiacentric forum, but I'm hoping open minds entertain differing ideas, on the supposition that most Slashdot readers are fairly open-minded and will realise that I'm trying to state an honest viewpoint as inoffensively as I can.
You're right. On many pages this is the case. It seems a little haphazard when it happens, but it's particularly obvious when browsing my own site under localhost. It happens more when loading a new page, but a fair amount when refreshing too. The reason this particularly bugs me is because often I make changes to some line of text on the site, and when I reload I keep my eye on the text so I can take a squiz at how the changes look. If it does the whole white-screen, pause thing, I lose the text and have to find it again (the white screen is probably the worst part because my main site has a dark blue bgcolor).
I don't notice this effect as much online, I must admit. I was particularly thinking of Mozilla in terms of web-development I suppose, and since I do that a lot and find Opera easier for it, I have a certain bias against Mozilla. Actually I'm quite impressed with how fast Mozilla loads the Slashdot frontpage; the incremental rendering is really helpful in this case.
Now, I'd better stop replying or people are gonna think I have nothing better to do with my life.
So how long after Mozilla goes gold are we expecting Opera to stay around? You can't make money when another product is [better than/"good enough" relative to] your product.
Opera is adware; you can download and use it for free, but there's an ad banner in the toolbar. Actually I don't find it particularly obtrusive, but I have registered Opera nonetheless. However, Opera has a very strong presence in embedded systems, and is the standard browser on some new Nokia phone (check opera.com for more precise info; I can't recall the exact details).
The main advantage Opera has is how lightweight it is, as mentioned by another poster. This makes it ideal for mobile devices and slow computers. Also, remember that even if Mozilla had/gets all the features Opera has, I'm still not sure I'd switch. I find Opera's increased responsiveness (perceived or not) to be a strong motivation to keep using it over Mozilla. Maybe I just don't like programs that make my computer feel slow...I'm running an Athlon ~900 MHz with 512 MiB of RAM. If I had less RAM, I would also possibly choose Opera because it's been running all night and has six window tabs open (my site, submail.net, mozdev.org and three slashdot windows), and it's using 21,252 kiB of memory. Mozilla, which I just opened, has only two windows open (one of them my extremely lightweight site and the other the slashdot front page) and it's using 21,772 kiB of memory.
Depending on your needs and preferences, Opera and Mozilla have different attractions. I imagine Opera will remain in contention on the desktop for some time to come, but probably it will eventually fall from fame to some degree. In the embedded market though, it's got a decided advantage, and quite a headstart.
As for "You can't make money when another product is [better than/"good enough" relative to] your product"...why do you think that? I mean, take the obvious example of Windows 2000 Server and Linux. Microsoft still seems to be making a lot of money. Also remember that Opera is more targeted to Windows users than Mozilla is (at least, that's the impression I get). While breaking into the IE market on Windows is pretty hard, it's becoming easier due to Microsoft's appalling track record with IE--new holes are being reported literally every week on The Register, for example. I'm not sure about this last point, but I feel Windows users may also be more willing to pay for something than Linux users, since most of them are using a proprietary OS in the first place.
Just some thoughts. Personally I think Opera will maintain a presence on the desktop, but Mozilla and IE will comprise most of the market share.
Heh, thanks, but when I said "page load speed" I was thinking of the actual bit-rate that the browser was downloading the page at. Opera has a nice function that tells me when I'm loading pages at 200 Bps...and I know I need to reconnect. Never mind; new ISP soon...
On the other hand, Opera doesn't tell you how long it takes to load the document like Mozilla does. Not sure which I'd consider more important. If I was on broadband, probably the latter. On dialup, as I am, probably the former.
That link just makes Mozilla a whole lot more usable for me; thank you kindly.
Regarding your question...there's nothing wrong with incremental rendering at all. I'm not trying to dis the Mozilla team for choosing to have Mozilla render pages like this. As you say, incremental rendering can be really helpful when it's a large page, and yes, Opera does often sit for thirty seconds on a blank page before showing you anything, and yes it's damn annoying. I was commenting entirely in terms of the effect that incremental rendering has for me, as an Opera user. Since I generally only load small pages, I find that the difference between Mozilla and Opera's rendering methods makes Mozilla feel sluggish. It's probably completely illusionary, and as I mentioned, it's a crap reason to not use Mozilla. No offence was intended &:>
I wonder now...will Mozilla ever give me the most important feature Opera has; page load speed in the status bar;)
...I'm disgusted by this. I thought the reason I was copylefting my work and moving to journalism was that the current IP and copyright situation is appalling and I didn't feel like being screwed by publishers, let alone supporting them. Now though...maybe I'm also deliberately segregating myself from the stupid, greedy authors out there. It's always surprising to me how people who supposedly work in the Arts can seem to care so little for their work, or the work of others, and only for their own pockets.
That said, I'm not surprised. That's humanity for you. But one must wonder...instead of going after Amazon, why doesn't the Author's Guild try targetting the companies who are really screwing authors out of money--the publishers?
The tabbed windows, I believe, were around in Opera before Mozilla. I use Mozilla for testing compatibility on my website (sometimes what looks good on Opera can look a bit wrong in other browsers) but I find that while it does have some really great features I'd love to see in Opera, it's missing a bit too that makes it inconvenient for me to use. One of the main things that I still haven't figured out (and I have looked) is how to go to the address bar using the keyboard. In Opera you hit F8. In IE you hit Alt-D. I'm sure Mozilla must have this really obvious feature or people would go insane, but I just can't seem to find it.
The other thing that's a bit annoying, though has improved greatly since I first tried the 0.9.3 release, is the feeling that Mozilla is a little sluggish. I don't know if it's actually slower rendering an average page than Opera is (perhaps a tiny bit), but it feels slower. Opera seems to get everything worked out in the background before drawing a page; Mozilla seems to draw it as it goes. I know this is a crap reason to not use a browser, but it's that F5, <pause>, white screen, page-draws-down that bugs me.
There are, of course, other minor annoyances, like the rather slow loadup time (but I have my browser open nearly 24/7 anyway), but those two things are probably what I still find the worst. Oh yeah, and I'm sure Mozilla supports them, but there doesn't seem to be a way to turn on mouse gestures through the preferences.
Please note that I'm speaking purely from the point of view of someone who is using Opera, and before that IE. I find Opera's keyboard shortcuts and the ability to turn off Javascript, images etc with a single pulldown menu (F12) to be really great; I imagine you can do similar things in Mozilla, but they're not as easy to find in my experience.
On the other hand, Mozilla has a fabulous preferences system that is much easier to use than Opera's. It has a prettier interface too, although Opera certainly isn't ugly. And while it doesn't have mouse-wheel window switching, it also doesn't keep focus on the old window tab because of it. Don't think I'm bashing Mozilla because I'm not. I imagine that if you were someone accustomed to Netscape, Mozilla would seem far better than Opera. Opera seems to try to be more like IE. If Opera wasn't around, I'd use Mozilla, and I'm pleased there's a really decent alternative to Opera--both because competition promotes innovation, and because if Opera ever goes under or their browser just goes to shit, I can switch to Mozilla. I'd like to make a completely redundant statement now, and say kudos to everyone involved with the Mozilla project. Awsome work guys; I may not use your browser, but I'm still behind you 100%.
by going back in time and changing something you're creating a parallel universe
the timeline as we know it will therefore be unaffacted
if you decide to jump back in time you'll be shunted onto this new timetrack and out of our existing one
because of this, proof of time travel can only come from someone in a master reality jumping back and being shunted onto our timeline, not through anyone on our timeline jumping back
Ignoring the obvious apparent violations of basic physical laws associated with travelling through time, this leads me to two conclusions:
considering that, for people in the future, what is happening now is already "set" and cannot be changed, one must assume that their own present is also unchangeable history for people in their future, and so on. Extrapolate to a point we'll call The End of Time(TM) and the indication would seem to be that everything that has happened, and will happen, is already set and cannot be changed, by merit of the fact that it's unalterable from this master reference point.
any form of time travel is therefore only a by-product of the real action being described, which is the ability to jump between parallel realities. There is no way for you to "alter" these realities, because they are secondary to your own existence in them, and whatever changes you make will automatically be the way their history was already described.
Sorry, is this giving anyone else a headache? I'm not really sure how this applies to travelling forward in time; I suppose the same way as going back. It makes a pretty convincing argument for determinist theory over free-will though.
What a rip-off king! This guy is totally selling my story! I mean, so what, he thinks he's found a way to manipulate the t coordinates through the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky bridge as well as u. Big deal! Wait till he realises he hasn't set his home coordinates and he's stuck sliding between worlds for the rest of his goddamned life. Wait till he has to deal with an Allosaurus, or the Kromaggs catch up with him. He'd better stay far back in history!
What a pimp.
Damn, sorry I can't stay--thirty seconds to the next wormhole. I gtg.
...yet you post both a link to a review and to its homepage on Slashdot? One thing's for sure; having now had their servers crushed beneath the onslaught of half a million battle-tank-desperate nerds, the guys associated with this game sure don't love you.
Slashdot Mirror
- 1. Excusing your pejorative armchair psychology as informative is pathetic. If you're going to insult someone, own up to it. If not, don't hide behind big words and pretend you're doing something you aren't.
Psychology involves more than mere observation. If I had started drawing arbitrary conclusions about the reason for your apparent arrogance, conceitedness and inability to address arguments proving you wrong, then you could have become upset with me. However, trying to define as pejorative something as simple as an observation of your personality based on several comments you have made (an observation independently verified by another person I have spoken to) only serves to demonstrate your inflated sense of self-importance. You appear to be that type of person which exaggerates the actions of others when you perceive them as inflicting on your own, special ego, and then cries foul over it--rather like many large, manopolistic corporations that will go unnamed.- 2. I believe words mean things. I belive in objective reality and objective truth. I believe there is a difference between right and wrong, good and bad, and even between bad and worse. Most English professors don't. MLA is held hostage by a bunch of fools, who are unfortunately turning generations of liberal arts majors into similar fools. Telling me to ask one of these bullshit peddlers for their opinion on the meaning of a particular word is pointless.
Two points here. Firstly, I'm glad we've cleared up the issue of whether words can have a definite meaning. Since you agree they do, we can perhaps get back to the topic at hand, which is defining the actual meaning of "terrorist"--an issue you have consistently avoided in favour of quibbling over trivialities.Secondly, since you have not even attempted to give evidence of your own profession or qualifications, I am assuming you have no formal experience or training in the field of the English language. Subsequently, pontificating on how the opinions of people who have studied this exact field for many years are foolish bullshit is not only meaningless but, one could say, pejorative. You're not the first person I've met who believes their personal opinion is some kind of absolute truth, outweighing the beliefs of experts, but your laughable conviction is still amazing.
- 3. Appealing to authority is an invalid reasoning technique. If you want to appeal to authority, then I appeal to myself as the ultimate authority on every topic, and declare myself right and you wrong. See how easy that was?
In fact, as we are taught in journalism and critical thinking--topics dealing with hard facts and logic--appealing to authority is only a logical fallacy when that authority has no standing in the field being discussed. Your logic here is so broken that I'm beginning to re-evaluate my belief that you're not a troll. The example you give is amusing, though disingenuous at best; appealing to yourself as the ultimate authority on anything is obviously an invalid argumentative technique since you are clearly not an authority on everything (unless you're God, in which case why couldn't you just say so?). However, if you were a C++ programmer of twenty years, appealing to yourself as an authority on C++ programming would be quite valid.You appear intent on not only avoiding the actual topic of this discussion, but also contradicting yourself wherever possible. If, as you say in your latest post, appealing to yourself as an authority is an invalid reasoning technique, then clearly your initial argument that terrorists only attack civilian targets is invalid as well, since the only evidence you give to justify this definition is your own opinion. Incredibly though, you nonetheless argue over the definition of terrorism by simultaneously asserting that you, as an authority, are correct but that my own references are not. This double-standard is revoked in the next post when you say that appealing to yourself as an authority is invalid--apparently negating your former argument. Evidently you now do not believe that any authority can be considered valid. Which is it?
I will assume that your most recent post is what you actually believe, and that your other posts were some kind of a mistake. This is interesting because, since appeals to authority cannot be made and we cannot decide who holds the authoritative definition, you must believe that meaning cannot be defined--yet this is something you explicity disagreed with in your most recent post. It also forces you into the position of accepting semantic relativism, which you say is a sign of moral relativism, which in turn is a sign of a spoiled and lazy mind. Indeed, judging from the maze of circuitous and contradictory logic you are trying to use, I would suggest this is an excellent description in some cases.
It is fascinating to me that you seem to be dismissing the existence of experts and thinkers. I am forced to wonder why anyone continues to draw upon hundreds of years of human experience when you are here to help us out with the arbitrary assertion of your opinion. Since I am clearly unable to prove my point through established references that any sane person would be forced to accept, and there appears to be no possibility of retrieving the emaciated carcass of the initial debate from the tangled web of reasoning you trapped it in, there apparently isn't any point in continuing this discussion.
- Gee, that makes you 2 for 2! Pretty impressive.
The referenced comment was not a personal attack; it was an observation. I can understand how you would interpret it otherwise, but my intention was to inform rather than insult.- You keep quoting other people and ignoring common sense. That's OK.
Where did I quote anyone, unless you consider providing references to support my argument "quoting"? If you consider these to be invalid because they're not my own opinion, but the opinion of many people who have spent a great deal of time studying linguistics, there is nothing further I can do. Add "common sense" to the list of words/phrases we disagree on the meaning of.- Anyone who considers anything said by English professors as proof of anything should get no respect. Heck, most English professors deny the concept of "meaning". It's all just subjective, post-modern, deconstructionist. There's no truth, just interpretation. So since it's all just interpretation, how can I rely on them as an authority on anything?
I am not attempting to provide proof of anything. I am suggesting that you speak to people who actually know something about the topic you are arguing on (linguistics, semantics and meaning) before trying to contradict at least four independent and identical definitions of a word, from four highly reputable sources acknowledged as authorities on the matter. As a writer, I have some personal experience in these areas myself; how about you? Subjectivism does not come into it; there is always an accepted subjectivity to the interpretation of language. That doesn't change hard facts, which you have consistently ignored in your responses to my posts.It is interesting to me how your most recent post--which appears to try to refute the idea of objective meaning--appears to directly contradict your parent post, in which you are clearly arguing over an exact definition ("This is why George Washington wasn't a terrorist, but he was a freedom fighter"). Is semantic relativism only applicable when it suits you?
Come to that, is semantic relativism the sign of a spoiled and lazy mind?
When you reply, could you please try to address the key points of my arguments and either refute them or acquiesce to them, instead of making snide and counter-productive remarks about things that are meaningless to the issue at hand and ignoring everything else I have to say? It appears you are keen to make much of my ability to use references in support of my arguments, yet wholly unable to address the arguments themselves.
You're just a narrow-minded, outspoken and arrogant person reacting childishly to a challenge to your ideas. In my experience you are by no means alone, and I've been flamed by too many like you to take offence. I'd rather try to point out that you're twisting the facts to suit y our narrow worldview. The definition I gave of a terrorist is quite specific: a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The definition provided by dictionary.com has the same emphasis on individualism: one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. Terrorism itself is defined as the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments (WordNet, Princeton University). Chambers supports this. If you feel any of these dictionaries are invalid, Jon, perhaps you need to speak to some English professors at the nearest university or technology institute.
Clearly, acts of terrorism are most often directed toward civilians and civilian property, and obviously a government can engage in acts of terrorism. Genererally, however, they engage in acts of war which are--contrary to your arbitrary and unreferenced definition--completely separate from terrorism. War, as described by dictionary.com and confirmed by Oxford, is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The purpose of war is not to intimidate or coerce a society or government, but to destroy or control that society and government's assets to the point that they can no longer retaliate against you. Terrorism, by contrast, is arbitrary and unannounced, involving relatively small groups officially unsanctioned people whose primary goal is to intimidate and coerce. War is governed by certain rules; hence there are such things as war crimes. For example, bombing civilian targets is not considered acceptable under the rules of engagement, nor is denying passage to medics on missions of mercy. The fact that these are both activities engaged in by terrorists does not define people who engage in these acts as terrorists. You're confusing correlation with causality--a common mistake of people like you, whether it be deliberate or not.
As a practical example, let me use the most obvious situation: September 11. Two targets were attacked; the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. If we were to assume that the aeroplanes used were not loaded with civilians, by your definition the attack on the Pentagon would not be considered a terrorist act. However, since the people who committed the act are defined as terrorists, your definition would be in contradiction of itself. Clearly the attack on the Pentagon can also be defined as an act of war, since the Pentagon is a military target despite the fair number of civilians who work there--civilians nearly always work in military targets, and often there are many more civilians located in viable military targets such as factories than there are military personnel. Having read some of your other comments in this thread, I know that you understand these civilians are considered valid targets.
I would suggest you re-examine your ideas. That a terrorist can loosely be defined in the colloquial as someone who attacks civilian targets does not mean this is the actual definition of a terrorist. There is, I think you will agree, a distinction between a criminal and a terrorist, just as there is a distinction between an army and a terrorist organisation. I am assuming you are a resident of the US, so I can understand your confusion. Your government and judiciary are currently trying to twist the definition of terrorism to suit their own agendas; something I'm sure you'll have seen much discussion of on Slashdot since hackers are prime candidates under this new regime.
If you have not yet realised the quite simple truth of the quote I mentioned--that the wise believe themselves to be fools, and the fools believe themselves wise--deciding which category you fall into is a simple matter I leave up to you.
Regarding your assertion on right and wrong in slums, I would suggest your example is flawed since the conditions there are not conducive to any kind of philosophical discourse, both intellectually and pragmatically. I would also need some kind of evidence that you are experienced on the matter before being willing to discuss it further, since I am well familiar with the topic, having been raised in Cape Town, .za.
Unresolvable arguments about morality aside, may I suggest that in future you favour re-examining your ideas, over writing hot-headed and intellectually vacuous replies that only serve to damage your own credibility? Not only would it put you in a stronger position, but it would lend more validity to the debate itself.
Dunno, I could be wrong. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, so I don't know everything there is to know. I just always felt that the Force was independent of human politics.
I believe the people of Naboo are known as Nubians..
terrorist
Your analogy is flawed. The definition of a freedom fighter depends on which side you're on, not what their actions are. Saying that a terrorist is someone who attacks specifically civilian targets is disengenuous, and something I'd expect of the Bush administration or a Slashdot troll (the parent could be either or both). Terrorists will naturally favour civilian targets because it is the easiest way to achieve the goals defined in the definitions I just provided, however it is not a requirement of the definition. I wouldn't even suggest that terrorists with worthy goals don't target civilians, because that depends largely on the situation.
As Dr. Spork said, until you define "terrorism" shut the fuck up.
Incidentally, moral relativism tends to be the sign of an intelligent mind uncertain and doubtful of the uncompromising opinions imposed on it by a lazy and spoiled society. As D John Tennant put it, The difference between those who are wise and those who are not is that the wise believe themselves to be fools [ie, are doubtful of the certainty of the values they themselves hold], and the fools believe themselves to be wise [ie require something other than themselves to classify as foolish, such as moral relativism, since by their definition a wise person should not have such deep doubts about anything].
...but I agree with the sentiment. This article on Salon says things better than I could, and this one covers the values put forward in Star Wars pretty well.
Fan fiction is probably one of the most interesting and creative parts of any franchise. I'm sure I'm not the only writer who started my career with a novel set in an existing universe (Star Trek in my case).
Having created a fairly complex science fiction series of my own called Raváj, I know that in one sense I wouldn't be terribly keen on having other people take it and write their own stories about it. It's a case of feeling that I'm the only one who really understands the universe enough, and knows the characters well enough to write about it. I wouldn't want people to do something with Raváj that I feel "isn't right". And, to a small extent, yes it feels a little threatening.
But, on the other hand, I would strongly encourage anyone who liked Raváj to create fan-fiction based on it if they felt inclined. Writers will often create their own characters (as I did in my Star Trek novella) rather than using existing ones, because it just feels better. And if they decide to use the existing characters out of convenience, or because they want to start off slow, they're unlikely to do anything too terrible (although of course you'll always get the "romantics" who commit complete character-rape for the sake of silly, impossible relationships). And so what if they do? I don't have to like the fan-fiction that's written for it to be liked by others.
The natural feeling of possessiveness, at least in my case, is strongly overruled by the interest in what other people would do with Raváj, and my belief in freedom of speech (actually Raváj is copyleft for this reason). Often you gain some insight into your own creation by seeing how other people view it. And besides, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Now, this is just my own smug, arrogant opinion, but I don't consider people to be artists if they try to restrict how people use their work. I don't think Lucas is a good writer, let alone one worth the money he has. I don't like the values he portrays in his movies, and I don't like his pomposity, or his opportunistic manipulation of the facts surrounding the initial creation of Star Wars .
I think he's an untalented writer who got a lucky break. Now don't get me wrong; I have nothing at all against untalented writers, as long as they enjoy what they write and they're earnest about it. Everyone has a right to do what they enjoy, even if most people think it's crap (and obviously most people don't think Star Wars is crap; indeed, I quite enjoy it for its entertainment value). I just have issues when such people won't let others do the same thing. Once ideas ("intellectual property" if you will) are put on paper, on a screen or whatever, they become part of the thought processes of everyone who is exposed to them. They become something larger than the sum of their parts, and it's ridiculous to try to censor how people wish to develop them just because you were the initial creator. Certainly the creator should be able to get some reward for their own effort, be it money or simple recognition, but I don't believe that any book someone writes set in Raváj is mine, just as I don't believe that anyone who creates their own chair after seeing a chair I created should pay me for it.
Of course, prickly questions get raised by trademarks, but since this is a competition, I don't think that's applicable. Lucas is a greedy bastard with little respect for the values of a true artist--at least, where a "true artist" is someone who cares about art. I don't know if that's how an artist is defined any more. Seems like money has become the focus everywhere.
- Puhlease. Who wouldn't want to be healthier, stronger, faster, smarter, wiser? Who wouldn't want their children to have all of the benefits that they could muster?
Your naivity is evident. How do you propose using bioengineering to become wiser? And, assuming you take your question about children to the logical not-so-extreme a la Gattaca, what right do you have to determine your child's abilities and, possibly, career path?Perhaps EULAs should not be so much found automatically invalid as invalidated only if they violate consitutional rights, or some template of what is considered reasonable?
...become a huge goddamned distributed-network-in-a-room?
Oscar Wilde would add that it's also a virtue of the vicious.
I'm all for a gradual enforcement of .com, .edu etc (it would have to be gradual because it's such a huge process, and it could badly affect a lot of sites if it was suddenly pushed into effect). What I'd really like to see, however, is a vigorous enforcement of country TLDs. I think it's ridiculous that the personal website of some guy called James Martin in the US can have a .com domain, but the website of an international company called James Martin in Australia has to have jamesmartin.com.au. If it's international, give it a .com, .edu, .net or whatever. If it's not, give them a .com.au, .net.de or .edu.us.
I don't understand this idea where all US sites get international TLDs. Some backwater university in the US is somehow important to everyone in the world and gets cambridge.edu, while Cambridge University in England must be cam.ac.uk just because it's in a country that doesn't "own the internet"? Yes, I know, I'm ignoring the difference in TLD in this case, but I'm sure there are numerous others.
See my point?
For example, Burton says in the article that he sometimes gets as little as 0.02 kiBps on Kazaa, and an average of less than 1 kiBps. Erm, entry for Duh Magazine, anyone? I mean, I'm only on dialup so I can't speak for 128k Jetstart, but I regularly get less than 1 kiBps even when my connection is completely idle. It's a huge p2p network; it's invariably pretty slow. Sure, the average he states does seem a bit low, and perhaps Telecom is throttling bandwidth a bit, but the range of download speeds he states (if we are to take his word; I see no actual figures) seem to indicate that there's something more at work that simply that. Assuming that sometimes bandwidth is throttled more and less, it's still disingenuous to suggest that the only cause for such slow downloads is due to Telecom.
I also find it ridiculous that he suggests, "to be consistent Xtra [Telecom's ISP branch] should be limiting bandwidth used by Microsoft Update and Messenger software which act as servers too." Microsoft update is a necessary feature for many people, and neither it nor MSM, ICQ or IRC is going to be sucking anywhere near the bandwidth that filesharing apps do. This is either just a completely skewed viewpoint, or plain ignorance. In my view it's the latter, since Burton (the Herald IT editor) doesn't seem to even know enough to differentiate between GB (gigabytes) and Gb (gigabits).
I'm no fan of Telecom. I hate them; they're manopolistic and have extremely poor service. But this isn't a valid reason to attack them. They state in the users' contract that running servers (incidentally, I question that webservers running on their service would account for even one hundredth of the bandwidth that p2p does, although Burton seems to imply otherwise) of any kind is unacceptable. Personally, while I think it would be courteous for Telecom to inform their customers that they will actively throttle p2p and server applications (and no, I don't think messenger programs can be classified as "servers" Mr Burton), I don't see how it's a requirement on their part, or a breach of contract as Burton suggests. If you're doing something with their service that you've agreed not to, I can't see how you can complain if they quietly ensure you can no longer do that thing.
IANALawyer, so I can't speak for the legality of my opinion, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone with a more solid understanding of the technicalities.
So these bullpup guns are bad, and the M16 type design is good? Okay...but when why is the FN-P90, a bullpup design, replacing the MP5 (an M16-type weapon) in the US Airforce (don't know about Army)?
I actually don't see why you'd need to point the muzzle away from your target during reloading. Depending how you hold the weapon, it seems that it would be sometimes easier to reload while pointing forward, and sometimes more difficult, than the M16. Likewise, assuming a good design, I don't see why you'd need two hands, or more time. Lying down to fire (sorry, in the rest of the world we understand the distinction between a verb and a past participle) would seem to be easier, since you've got no magazine hanging out the bottom and can streamline the gun against your shoulder. And once again, assuming a decent design, I can't see why you'd need to expose more head and shoulders when firing around a corner. You don't have to hold the weapon against your shoulder to fire.
I've seen these things used very competently by actors. I'd be surprised if real soldiers had more difficulty with them, despite more strenous and difficult circumstances.
You also forgot to mention that bullpup designs have longer muzzles, greater magazine capacity and are generally more lightweight. For example, compare the P90 to the M16. The P90 weighs 3.0 kg loaded, has a 50-round magazine and a muzzle velocity of 715 m/s unless subsonic rounds are required, where a 304 m/s bullet can be used. It has a cyclic rate of fire of 900 rpm and its 5.56 mm rounds can piece level-3 body armour at 200 m with a maximum range of 400 m. It's also extremely easy to clean (four minutes), has a built-in supressor and laser site.
The M16 weighs 3.99 kg loaded, has a 30-round magazine and a muzzle velocity of 853 m/s. Its cyclic rate of fire is 800 rpm and its 5.56 mm rounds have a maximum range of 360 m despite its greater muzzle velocity (I couldn't find the effective range in the time I felt like spending). As is also fairly obvious, the M16 is a very long and bulky weapon (a metre long), while the P90 is compact and streamlined and precisely half the length.
I was under the impression that these weapons were used under different circumstances. One is a rifle, the other a submachinegun. Nonetheless, you could check your facts before applying gross generalisations. Your entire post comes across "patriotic" rubbish demonstrating an arrogant Usian viewpoint that might is right. Everyone knows the US has the most advanced military force in the world, and most people realise that this does not always guarantee victory. Why are you getting so uptight trying to prove it does? Is a country's worth measured by its firepower?
- "On the other hand, Washington's war wonks don't seem actively oppressive, bloody-handed, or evil. Old Glory hangs all over town in its riveted incarnation as the 9/11 battle flag, but there are no jackboot parades or martyr cults. Let's face it, the world might do much worse."
Leave that mod button alone for a sec--I'm trying to present an honest viewpoint, not troll. I don't hate the US. But this smug, presumtuous attitude is a problem. I agree that there must be measures in place to stop factions like the Taleban from damaging our own society. But I believe this should be something that is done through international cooperation. A single country cannot assign itself as judge, jury and executioner simply because its the most powerful. When people do that, they're called bullies.The article seems to take the attitude that the "Usian way" is the "right way"; that it's just fine for the US to target whomever they please in order to ensure their own safety. You can't build a "New World Order" by simply crushing anyone who disagrees with you. And if you're on the side that would benefit from such a New World Order, you should probably be concerned about how your way of life is built, and who will be the next target after all the opposition is gone (hint: the population of this New World Order).
Once again, please don't misunderstand. I don't mean to bash the US; I would like to question the article itself for assuming that the world must go along with the US or be beaten into submission, because to me that's what it seems to say. The problem is primarily with the leaders, who are people apparently intoxicated with their own power and completely without the wisdom or responsibility to use it with restraint; and also with the population, who are apathetic to the attitude their leaders hold as long as their easy way of life continues.
Now, I'm not saying that the US is without cause for its actions. I don't want to make any judgements on who is in the right in specific instances. But the reckless attitude of "Global Cop" put forward in the article, as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, is something that is heavily, heavily resented, and not just by radical Middle-Eastern parties. I don't feel I speak for myself alone. As a New Zealander and former South African I know that what I'm saying is a fairly prevalent viewpoint in both those countries. One only need watch TV to hear Bush commenting on the Israeli activities of the last few days: words to the effect of "I am not going to put up with this." Perhaps to people in the US these sound like strong words, but to people in other countries they sound like the words of a spoiled man with no real understanding of what he's talking about, assuming that the power he has gives him some right to dictate the actions of other countries. Of course I'm not saying that Sharon is right or that Bush is wrong--I agree with Bush's intent, but not his conviction that whatever he wants another country to do must happen, however true that is.
This attitude is what I see in the article. I imagine I'll be heavily downmodded for this post, since this is a Usiacentric forum, but I'm hoping open minds entertain differing ideas, on the supposition that most Slashdot readers are fairly open-minded and will realise that I'm trying to state an honest viewpoint as inoffensively as I can.
I don't notice this effect as much online, I must admit. I was particularly thinking of Mozilla in terms of web-development I suppose, and since I do that a lot and find Opera easier for it, I have a certain bias against Mozilla. Actually I'm quite impressed with how fast Mozilla loads the Slashdot frontpage; the incremental rendering is really helpful in this case.
Now, I'd better stop replying or people are gonna think I have nothing better to do with my life.
Opera is adware; you can download and use it for free, but there's an ad banner in the toolbar. Actually I don't find it particularly obtrusive, but I have registered Opera nonetheless. However, Opera has a very strong presence in embedded systems, and is the standard browser on some new Nokia phone (check opera.com for more precise info; I can't recall the exact details).
The main advantage Opera has is how lightweight it is, as mentioned by another poster. This makes it ideal for mobile devices and slow computers. Also, remember that even if Mozilla had/gets all the features Opera has, I'm still not sure I'd switch. I find Opera's increased responsiveness (perceived or not) to be a strong motivation to keep using it over Mozilla. Maybe I just don't like programs that make my computer feel slow...I'm running an Athlon ~900 MHz with 512 MiB of RAM. If I had less RAM, I would also possibly choose Opera because it's been running all night and has six window tabs open (my site, submail.net, mozdev.org and three slashdot windows), and it's using 21,252 kiB of memory. Mozilla, which I just opened, has only two windows open (one of them my extremely lightweight site and the other the slashdot front page) and it's using 21,772 kiB of memory.
Depending on your needs and preferences, Opera and Mozilla have different attractions. I imagine Opera will remain in contention on the desktop for some time to come, but probably it will eventually fall from fame to some degree. In the embedded market though, it's got a decided advantage, and quite a headstart.
As for "You can't make money when another product is [better than/"good enough" relative to] your product"...why do you think that? I mean, take the obvious example of Windows 2000 Server and Linux. Microsoft still seems to be making a lot of money. Also remember that Opera is more targeted to Windows users than Mozilla is (at least, that's the impression I get). While breaking into the IE market on Windows is pretty hard, it's becoming easier due to Microsoft's appalling track record with IE--new holes are being reported literally every week on The Register , for example. I'm not sure about this last point, but I feel Windows users may also be more willing to pay for something than Linux users, since most of them are using a proprietary OS in the first place.
Just some thoughts. Personally I think Opera will maintain a presence on the desktop, but Mozilla and IE will comprise most of the market share.
On the other hand, Opera doesn't tell you how long it takes to load the document like Mozilla does. Not sure which I'd consider more important. If I was on broadband, probably the latter. On dialup, as I am, probably the former.
Regarding your question...there's nothing wrong with incremental rendering at all. I'm not trying to dis the Mozilla team for choosing to have Mozilla render pages like this. As you say, incremental rendering can be really helpful when it's a large page, and yes, Opera does often sit for thirty seconds on a blank page before showing you anything, and yes it's damn annoying. I was commenting entirely in terms of the effect that incremental rendering has for me, as an Opera user. Since I generally only load small pages, I find that the difference between Mozilla and Opera's rendering methods makes Mozilla feel sluggish. It's probably completely illusionary, and as I mentioned, it's a crap reason to not use Mozilla. No offence was intended &:>
I wonder now...will Mozilla ever give me the most important feature Opera has; page load speed in the status bar ;)
That said, I'm not surprised. That's humanity for you. But one must wonder...instead of going after Amazon, why doesn't the Author's Guild try targetting the companies who are really screwing authors out of money--the publishers?
The other thing that's a bit annoying, though has improved greatly since I first tried the 0.9.3 release, is the feeling that Mozilla is a little sluggish. I don't know if it's actually slower rendering an average page than Opera is (perhaps a tiny bit), but it feels slower. Opera seems to get everything worked out in the background before drawing a page; Mozilla seems to draw it as it goes. I know this is a crap reason to not use a browser, but it's that F5, <pause>, white screen, page-draws-down that bugs me.
There are, of course, other minor annoyances, like the rather slow loadup time (but I have my browser open nearly 24/7 anyway), but those two things are probably what I still find the worst. Oh yeah, and I'm sure Mozilla supports them, but there doesn't seem to be a way to turn on mouse gestures through the preferences.
Please note that I'm speaking purely from the point of view of someone who is using Opera, and before that IE. I find Opera's keyboard shortcuts and the ability to turn off Javascript, images etc with a single pulldown menu (F12) to be really great; I imagine you can do similar things in Mozilla, but they're not as easy to find in my experience.
On the other hand, Mozilla has a fabulous preferences system that is much easier to use than Opera's. It has a prettier interface too, although Opera certainly isn't ugly. And while it doesn't have mouse-wheel window switching, it also doesn't keep focus on the old window tab because of it. Don't think I'm bashing Mozilla because I'm not. I imagine that if you were someone accustomed to Netscape, Mozilla would seem far better than Opera. Opera seems to try to be more like IE. If Opera wasn't around, I'd use Mozilla, and I'm pleased there's a really decent alternative to Opera--both because competition promotes innovation, and because if Opera ever goes under or their browser just goes to shit, I can switch to Mozilla. I'd like to make a completely redundant statement now, and say kudos to everyone involved with the Mozilla project. Awsome work guys; I may not use your browser, but I'm still behind you 100%.
Ignoring the obvious apparent violations of basic physical laws associated with travelling through time, this leads me to two conclusions:
Sorry, is this giving anyone else a headache? I'm not really sure how this applies to travelling forward in time; I suppose the same way as going back. It makes a pretty convincing argument for determinist theory over free-will though.
What a pimp.
Damn, sorry I can't stay--thirty seconds to the next wormhole. I gtg.
Quinn Malory.
...yet you post both a link to a review and to its homepage on Slashdot? One thing's for sure; having now had their servers crushed beneath the onslaught of half a million battle-tank-desperate nerds, the guys associated with this game sure don't love you.