Professional web dev here. I first heard about HTML 5 a year or two ago, in the context of their adding a bunch of new elements (<nav>, <header>, <sidebar> and so forth) and removing all the presentation markup.
Overall, HTML 5 is great. There are a few things from XHTML 1.1 which aren't going to be present which would be nice, but I can't name them offhand. The <video> tag was, to me, just a nice convenience. The war that's erupted over this is, IMO, kind of ridiculous; everyone should obviously support both if they can and Theora if they can't, unless legal issues materialize. And I think that's 100% FUD; the Xiph guys are meticulous about legality since it is basically the reason they exist. If anyone litigates Xiph, Xiph will win.
More than that, the <canvas> tag is a big deal. I hope all of CSS 3 gets implemented too. Things are looking pretty good overall. I think this video hysteria will probably blow over, and Theora will be widely available, if not installed by default, available as a plugin.
It's written in C++ and Java, so you're pretty much stuck with it. Not that I think Java by itself turns things to shit, but OO definitely seems to suck in ways that are considered pathologically Java.
I think one cockup a year is an acceptable rate, especially if it's one non-dangerous one. Forcing them to concentrate on nothing is going to lead to more serious problems as they fall asleep at the wheel instead.
The article is itself basically a summary of the format. If you don't care enough to read the article, probably all you should be worried about is what your iPod will and won't play.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think there is something to be said for small, light software, and that most OSS projects begin small and light for obvious reasons and then mature into huge, bloated pigs like Firefox. People who like small, light software are forced to continuously downgrade to newer, shittier software. This even happened to Scheme, which started out as a programming language whose spec could be printed on a handful of pages but which recently ballooned into three or four documents adding up to about 200 pages. If you believe removed code is debugged code, what's added code?
That said, the main thing I don't understand about the big distros is why they do so much patching in the first place. You often hear about kernel instabilities caused by distro maintainers applying patches that weren't accepted by the kernel team for good reason. Why monkey with stuff you don't understand? This is another reason I've preferred Gentoo and Arch, and, when possible, FreeBSD over Linux.
They definitely have that attitude, but I used them for a number of years without having them break anything. Stopped about a year ago because it didn't make business sense--we weren't using it enough. The product was fine (in my experience), but the company is definitely what you'd expect from the schmucks who invented Rails.
The problem here isn't that open source isn't profitable, it's that it isn't Oracle profitable. Oracle is the essential part of the problem here, and to answer directly is to miss the point.
We solve this not by huffing and wheezing about how great open source software is. We solve it by proving that we don't need closed source software, that giants like Oracle are unnecessary and useless. We solve it by using PostgreSQL and MySQL, by using Linux (and maybe Open Solaris). We solve it by publicly mocking anyone who spent the money on Oracle, finding security holes in Oracle, and generally making it unpleasant to be an Oracle customer, which won't be hard because of the great head start Oracle has on that.
We don't have to justify our existence or our way of doing business; they do. And they're doing a great job of pissing off their loyalists. IBM was once this proud. Look at them now. The same thing can happen here, we just have to refuse to put up with it.
My best guess is that if they offer an app which is one guy's platform to lambaste people, they're worried about libel suits in places like Britain, which don't have freedom of speech as such. The MSNBC app isn't a problem because it's obviously a forum for many people and MSNBC would ultimately be liable, not Apple, for distributing the material.
Another possibility is that they just don't want the iPhone app store to develop a reputation for having a particular political orientation, because that erodes their brand identity and universality. Ironic, since they're developing a reputation for being oppresive. I can't say I care a lot about the app store or what's in it, I bought my phone to be a phone with a nice UI.
The secret to understanding Apple is that they're 25% branding, 25% market analysis, 25% legalese and 25% technology. This is consistent with two or three of these. They'd care a lot more about our opinion as a group if we weren't the first ones to jump ship for Android. And honestly, we aren't that big a group. Look how long and hard we've had to fight to convince everyone we know not to use Windows and how well that's working out. That's more or less why they don't care what we think, regardless of how much we complain.
In order for that to work, the crowd has to actually have access to better information. The problem is that we are extremely prone to seeing patterns where they don't exist. No amount of software collation can turn pattern-y non-information into information.
I love the slashdot groupthink! It's like it's never occurred to you that market research is something you can do, or that a product with better technology will lose to a competitor that doesn't break Mom's wrists and doesn't require a manual! "Obviously, it must be the cult of Apple!"
I think if you look strictly at the base model and compare to a comparably configured PC you'll find there is a price difference, but it's not that substantial. I don't think you'll be able to find a PC laptop of equal quality construction for less.
My friends basically come in two flavors: Linux and Mac. I'm a Mac. I have a Linux laptop at home and I haven't yet been able to figure out why it takes 30 seconds after waking up to reassociate with the wireless when it takes my wife's Mac about 1 second. I also haven't be able to figure out how to make the "media" keys just work. Some of these problems would probably go away if I were to use Ubuntu, but I like the control of Arch. So this may sound self-inflicted, but if I'm going to have control, I'd rather have more of it. The Linux laptop can certainly do things it would be difficult to make the Mac do, it just doesn't do things all laptops should do out of the box. It takes a lot of tinkering.
I think if you want less hassle, you should get a Mac. Macs also depreciate in value more slowly than PCs. And frankly, most PC laptops feel shoddy. Macs are just more well constructed. The software too.
He's famous, so if he's interested they should just skip to the part where they negotiate the money?
Gosling is giant waste of skin. Anybody who learned and used Lisp and the only thing they got out of it was garbage collection is a fucking nimrod. I don't believe for a second he did anything approximating hard involving Java. All the great research has other, more important, less famous names attached to it.
Fuck him. He probably will wind up filed away with a job at Google, where he can safely do nothing that could damage them along side all those infinitely more deserving intelligent people who also do absolutely nothing of value there.
The main problem with tsunamis today is not how to warn people, it's how to detect them correctly at all. Seismic activity is correlated with them, but it's not a perfect correlation; a fair number of them are not caused by earthquakes at all, and a fair number of sizable earthquakes do not lead to tsunamis. There's both a fairly high false positive rate, and a fairly high false negative rate.
The situation is best in the pacific, where they have a network of deep sea buoys and alarm systems. I think the power necessary to illuminate vast areas of the world from space is much larger than a traditional RF signal, which is (I believe) the way this system works today. A factor in the devastation that occurred in Sumatra in 2004 was that there simply isn't any kind of tsunami detection network in the Indian ocean at all.
The cost of installing alarm systems at beaches is probably lower than the cost of installing the requisite sea buoys, and it's probably lower still than developing this kind of satellite too.
Yeah, but they usually claim that the higher-numbered dimensions are probably small enough to be insignificant at our scale.
Also, I thought Peter Woit made a compelling argument in Not Even Wrong that string theory is beautiful math, but since it cannot be used to produce a testable theory, it's not science, and we're probably stuck with the 3 dimensions we all know and love.
A reason that comes to mind is precedent. Assuming Norway's supreme court works like America's, if they appeal and lose they won't be able to sue anyone for anything that looks like this again.
By not appealing, they're giving themselves the opportunity to come back and sue all the way to the top with a case they think is more favorable to the outcome they want.
I personally would recommend some of the new post-rock to metal bands like Baroness, Explosions in the Sky, Pelican, and Mastodon. They all mix a fair number of influences, PF included, and create album-oriented rock that lends itself well to being listened to all the way through multiple times. Dream Theater's "Scenes from a Memory" is a great concept album, though it's pushing 10 or 15 years old now. People more into Floyd than myself seem to be fond of Porcupine Tree and Spock's Beard but I can't speak much to that. Even the death metal band Opeth, who are very much at the forefront of experimental music in their extreme genre, compose strong albums and have cited PF as a major influence.
Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument. Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.
Furthermore, embryonic stem cell research was never actually banned. The federal government just wasn't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research. At any rate, my understanding is that adult stem cells have produced more and better results anyway, and that's exactly what this doctor is doing: taking your own stem cells and giving them back to you. No fetuses = no moral problem. What's actually being skirted here is federal regulation over medical and drug procedures, not anything specific to stem cells.
I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance. If you have money and want to take the risk, by all means have at it. As for me, the state can pay for it when I'm reasonably convinced of the scientific validity—which includes that the long-term side effects do not outweigh the short-term benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
Professional web dev here. I first heard about HTML 5 a year or two ago, in the context of their adding a bunch of new elements (<nav>, <header>, <sidebar> and so forth) and removing all the presentation markup.
Overall, HTML 5 is great. There are a few things from XHTML 1.1 which aren't going to be present which would be nice, but I can't name them offhand. The <video> tag was, to me, just a nice convenience. The war that's erupted over this is, IMO, kind of ridiculous; everyone should obviously support both if they can and Theora if they can't, unless legal issues materialize. And I think that's 100% FUD; the Xiph guys are meticulous about legality since it is basically the reason they exist. If anyone litigates Xiph, Xiph will win.
More than that, the <canvas> tag is a big deal. I hope all of CSS 3 gets implemented too. Things are looking pretty good overall. I think this video hysteria will probably blow over, and Theora will be widely available, if not installed by default, available as a plugin.
It's written in C++ and Java, so you're pretty much stuck with it. Not that I think Java by itself turns things to shit, but OO definitely seems to suck in ways that are considered pathologically Java.
I can hardly disagree with that, but I don't think that's exactly what this legislation is aiming to do.
I think one cockup a year is an acceptable rate, especially if it's one non-dangerous one. Forcing them to concentrate on nothing is going to lead to more serious problems as they fall asleep at the wheel instead.
The article is itself basically a summary of the format. If you don't care enough to read the article, probably all you should be worried about is what your iPod will and won't play.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think there is something to be said for small, light software, and that most OSS projects begin small and light for obvious reasons and then mature into huge, bloated pigs like Firefox. People who like small, light software are forced to continuously downgrade to newer, shittier software. This even happened to Scheme, which started out as a programming language whose spec could be printed on a handful of pages but which recently ballooned into three or four documents adding up to about 200 pages. If you believe removed code is debugged code, what's added code?
That said, the main thing I don't understand about the big distros is why they do so much patching in the first place. You often hear about kernel instabilities caused by distro maintainers applying patches that weren't accepted by the kernel team for good reason. Why monkey with stuff you don't understand? This is another reason I've preferred Gentoo and Arch, and, when possible, FreeBSD over Linux.
If I had to guess, the effects are that they get better at playing these kinds of games.
They definitely have that attitude, but I used them for a number of years without having them break anything. Stopped about a year ago because it didn't make business sense--we weren't using it enough. The product was fine (in my experience), but the company is definitely what you'd expect from the schmucks who invented Rails.
The problem here isn't that open source isn't profitable, it's that it isn't Oracle profitable. Oracle is the essential part of the problem here, and to answer directly is to miss the point.
We solve this not by huffing and wheezing about how great open source software is. We solve it by proving that we don't need closed source software, that giants like Oracle are unnecessary and useless. We solve it by using PostgreSQL and MySQL, by using Linux (and maybe Open Solaris). We solve it by publicly mocking anyone who spent the money on Oracle, finding security holes in Oracle, and generally making it unpleasant to be an Oracle customer, which won't be hard because of the great head start Oracle has on that.
We don't have to justify our existence or our way of doing business; they do. And they're doing a great job of pissing off their loyalists. IBM was once this proud. Look at them now. The same thing can happen here, we just have to refuse to put up with it.
My best guess is that if they offer an app which is one guy's platform to lambaste people, they're worried about libel suits in places like Britain, which don't have freedom of speech as such. The MSNBC app isn't a problem because it's obviously a forum for many people and MSNBC would ultimately be liable, not Apple, for distributing the material.
Another possibility is that they just don't want the iPhone app store to develop a reputation for having a particular political orientation, because that erodes their brand identity and universality. Ironic, since they're developing a reputation for being oppresive. I can't say I care a lot about the app store or what's in it, I bought my phone to be a phone with a nice UI.
The secret to understanding Apple is that they're 25% branding, 25% market analysis, 25% legalese and 25% technology. This is consistent with two or three of these. They'd care a lot more about our opinion as a group if we weren't the first ones to jump ship for Android. And honestly, we aren't that big a group. Look how long and hard we've had to fight to convince everyone we know not to use Windows and how well that's working out. That's more or less why they don't care what we think, regardless of how much we complain.
In order for that to work, the crowd has to actually have access to better information. The problem is that we are extremely prone to seeing patterns where they don't exist. No amount of software collation can turn pattern-y non-information into information.
I love the slashdot groupthink! It's like it's never occurred to you that market research is something you can do, or that a product with better technology will lose to a competitor that doesn't break Mom's wrists and doesn't require a manual! "Obviously, it must be the cult of Apple!"
"Past prediction is not an indicator of future performance."
While we're at it, why don't we let everyone pool together their lottery number predictions?
I think if you look strictly at the base model and compare to a comparably configured PC you'll find there is a price difference, but it's not that substantial. I don't think you'll be able to find a PC laptop of equal quality construction for less.
My friends basically come in two flavors: Linux and Mac. I'm a Mac. I have a Linux laptop at home and I haven't yet been able to figure out why it takes 30 seconds after waking up to reassociate with the wireless when it takes my wife's Mac about 1 second. I also haven't be able to figure out how to make the "media" keys just work. Some of these problems would probably go away if I were to use Ubuntu, but I like the control of Arch. So this may sound self-inflicted, but if I'm going to have control, I'd rather have more of it. The Linux laptop can certainly do things it would be difficult to make the Mac do, it just doesn't do things all laptops should do out of the box. It takes a lot of tinkering.
I think if you want less hassle, you should get a Mac. Macs also depreciate in value more slowly than PCs. And frankly, most PC laptops feel shoddy. Macs are just more well constructed. The software too.
He's famous, so if he's interested they should just skip to the part where they negotiate the money?
Gosling is giant waste of skin. Anybody who learned and used Lisp and the only thing they got out of it was garbage collection is a fucking nimrod. I don't believe for a second he did anything approximating hard involving Java. All the great research has other, more important, less famous names attached to it.
Fuck him. He probably will wind up filed away with a job at Google, where he can safely do nothing that could damage them along side all those infinitely more deserving intelligent people who also do absolutely nothing of value there.
The main problem with tsunamis today is not how to warn people, it's how to detect them correctly at all. Seismic activity is correlated with them, but it's not a perfect correlation; a fair number of them are not caused by earthquakes at all, and a fair number of sizable earthquakes do not lead to tsunamis. There's both a fairly high false positive rate, and a fairly high false negative rate.
The situation is best in the pacific, where they have a network of deep sea buoys and alarm systems. I think the power necessary to illuminate vast areas of the world from space is much larger than a traditional RF signal, which is (I believe) the way this system works today. A factor in the devastation that occurred in Sumatra in 2004 was that there simply isn't any kind of tsunami detection network in the Indian ocean at all.
The cost of installing alarm systems at beaches is probably lower than the cost of installing the requisite sea buoys, and it's probably lower still than developing this kind of satellite too.
Yeah, but they usually claim that the higher-numbered dimensions are probably small enough to be insignificant at our scale.
Also, I thought Peter Woit made a compelling argument in Not Even Wrong that string theory is beautiful math, but since it cannot be used to produce a testable theory, it's not science, and we're probably stuck with the 3 dimensions we all know and love.
Try running that line past a psychologist, someone who has actually dealt with insanity.
A principal difference would be that lives are not literally at stake here.
A reason that comes to mind is precedent. Assuming Norway's supreme court works like America's, if they appeal and lose they won't be able to sue anyone for anything that looks like this again.
By not appealing, they're giving themselves the opportunity to come back and sue all the way to the top with a case they think is more favorable to the outcome they want.
From the article:
Reading through the kernel and reading in kernel mode aren't the same thing.
From what I gathered, in mammals it's more like all the cells are Observers and what they're observing are hormonal signals that indicate sex.
And as someone else observed, this is about sex, not gender identity or sexual orientation. This will get messy in a hurry.
I personally would recommend some of the new post-rock to metal bands like Baroness, Explosions in the Sky, Pelican, and Mastodon. They all mix a fair number of influences, PF included, and create album-oriented rock that lends itself well to being listened to all the way through multiple times. Dream Theater's "Scenes from a Memory" is a great concept album, though it's pushing 10 or 15 years old now. People more into Floyd than myself seem to be fond of Porcupine Tree and Spock's Beard but I can't speak much to that. Even the death metal band Opeth, who are very much at the forefront of experimental music in their extreme genre, compose strong albums and have cited PF as a major influence.
Pandora.
Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument. Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.
Furthermore, embryonic stem cell research was never actually banned. The federal government just wasn't willing to pay for embryonic stem cell research, which seems like a fair response to morally questionable research. At any rate, my understanding is that adult stem cells have produced more and better results anyway, and that's exactly what this doctor is doing: taking your own stem cells and giving them back to you. No fetuses = no moral problem. What's actually being skirted here is federal regulation over medical and drug procedures, not anything specific to stem cells.
I personally think people should be permitted access to experimental medical procedures, as long as they understand that as they are experimental, they're waiving their right to sue for wrongful death or medical malpractice, as well as any federal mandate for it to be covered by their insurance. If you have money and want to take the risk, by all means have at it. As for me, the state can pay for it when I'm reasonably convinced of the scientific validity—which includes that the long-term side effects do not outweigh the short-term benefits.