No. It means that it possibly had some evolutionary advantage at some stage. That it's still around means that it hasn't proved a sufficient disadvantage that those carrying it die before they reproduce.
That's what I find peculiar. As soon as they "discover" that the old adage "not everyone is wired the same way", they immediately declare these people "damaged" or "worthless".
My problem is more with people who, when finding out they are wired differently, then say "oh, it's not my fault, it's my genetics" and proceed to not even try to learn. Obviously this isn't the GP, but for far too many people, things like this (and say, ADHD, Aspergers, etc) become an excuse to be trotted out when convenient, not a hurdle to be overcome.
I don't. Moderate them to hell, yes, but one of the defining features of Slashdot is that they don't censor posts (or at least, seem not to...I seem to remember an incident a few years ago...)
Some games have puzzles, but it's nothing compared to, say, playing a strategy board game, doing a crossword puzzle, playing chess, etc.
Err, computer games can have exactly the same amount of strategy involved in playing a strategy boardgame, chess, etc. One of my favourite games as a kid was Battle Chess. It (obviously) had the same depth of strategy as chess. It also probably kept me interested longer than a physical board would have, due to the funny animations for each piece when they took another.
Computer games can be chess, strategy games, crossword puzzles. Ok, puzzle games/board game simulations have sort of fallen out of the mainstream because they're relatively simple these days, but there's still plenty out there.
Also, I know that in Final Fantasy 8, at least, enemies scaled with your level. So leveling up didn't make the game easier, it just increased the value of the loot you got from the enemies.
Sometimes, but games can offer their own reward. I remember when I was a kid (ok, a little older than 4, but just starting school) my Dad had a copy of battle chess. My friend and I wanted to see all the different ways the various pieces could take each other (for those who don't know the game, it had animated figures who performed different animations for each possible permutation of piece A taking piece B). So we learnt the rules of chess (if not the strategy) and set about doing it. We couldn't quite get there with all the possible checkmates, but we made a decent go of it.
I know a guy whose 2-year old play World of Warcraft. Not that she "plays" plays it. He's set up macros for/dance,/train and other visually/aurally rewarding commands, and she sets on Daddy's knee and pushes buttons to make the Elf move. It's pretty much the same as any of those kids toys where you push a button to make it beep, and pull a lever to make a light flash. It teaches the concept of cause and effect, and encourages exploration. As long as he doesn't let her learn language skills or manners from the in-game chat, it's all good.
In the face of half a billion dollars in damages awarded by the court! How many people here have criticised Microsoft for ignoring court decisions? But when they actually respond to a court case, suddenly it's evidence that they don't want to follow standards? Get some perspective. When they settled the case and obtained a license, they put Internet Explorer back to how it was before too.
They haven't put it back to how it was before. They plan to, some time in 2008. Which will mean it will have been broken for 2 years. MS had a choice - it could have settled the matter with Eolas, or it could have fought tooth and nail, and in the process, piss off every developer that had an embedded object somewhere in their site. They chose to take the fight, and piss off the developers. The change required to hack around the activation junk MS put in to step around the patent was much more significant than adding a meta tag.
Microsoft have never had a problem with making website developers clean up after their mistakes before. I doubt it's their concern for them now that's influencing their decision. They're just doing whatever's convenient for them at the time, just like they did in the Eolas matter, software quality be damned.
When you have to be compatible with an entire world-wide web's worth of documents and applications, it's impossible for any organisation, even Microsoft, to test adequately
You don't have to test it against the whole www. You have to test it against the specifications. That's what they're there for. The backwards compatibility meta tag would be there for that part of the www that required backwards compatibility. They don't need to test that - just plug in their existing render engine (which they're already doing). But if they're going to promote IE8 as ACID2 compliant, well then, I damn well expect them to test it such that they know it is ACID2 compliant.
They don't even need to break backwards compatibility - they've already got a truckload of aliases in there. Just create a new set of functions with a standard naming convetion, alias all the old names, and deprecate them. A couple of versions later when everyone's using the standards, then you can drop the aliases with little effect.
MS required a bigger change to websites earlier, when they deliberately broke IE6 as a result of the Eolas dispute. If they can break their browser to get around patent disputes, but not to comply with standards, it just shows where their priorities are.
But this is a major new rendering engine, switching to it by default when it is totally unproven is a really bad idea.
The idea is that MS would test their engine before shipping. A bit of an assumption, I know, but that's the theory.
No, what they should do is make the custom META tag trigger the backwards compatibility mode, and make it render standards compliant by default. Inserting a one-line meta-tag is so trivial, that any website that's actually being maintained can do it with no trouble at all. It also means that in 5-10 years, that meta tag will gracefully die out, as nobody will need the backwards compatibility code. You're right, Microsoft has made their own bed in regards to ignoring standards. Sooner or later, they're going to have to lie in it, and break backwards compatibility (even just a tiny amount, as I outlined) in order to get on board with the rest of the world.
Yeah, because nesting divs to hack around all CSS/IEs shortcomings is so much more efficient.
CSS is a wonderful thing, and has the potential to be even better, but its advantages are the ability to separate style and content, and remove code duplication for ease of maintenance. I've found that the size of the actual markup between table-based sites and CSS-based sites (not that the two are mutually exclusive) is pretty consistent.
The other option is stretch to fit its contents - the default behaviour of tables, but one which can't be replicated on block-level elements. The table's width is unknown when you're writing the script, but know when the browser renders it. Tables can be centered that way, but all the CSS purists abuse people for using tables for anything other than tabular data, while reproducing a table's behaviour with a DIV is still problematic (especially considering IE6 bugs).
It doesn't for tables - I have no idea why. However, it will center them if you apply text-align: center to the containing element, or the old align="center" attribute on the table itself.
Setting text-align: center on a div should only affect inline content, not block-level content. It doesn't on IE, but that's what it should do.
The Tree of Life is an expression first used by Charles Darwin to describe the diversity of organisms on Earth and their evolutionary history
I didn't know the Kabbalah involved discussion of evolutionary history. Or possibly you should quote entire sentences rather than out of context fragments which support your unjustified criticisms.
And if your block isn't fixed-width? Seriously, I've never understood why you need to tinker with an object's margins to changes its alignment. A whole stack of CSS stuff like this seems terribly clunky and unintuitive.
Of course, my mine gripe with the centering methods in CSS is that IE6 doesn't support them, but that's not W3Cs fault.
Yup...now just find me one client (who doesn't already do so) who is willing to cover the additional expense of hiring the more qualified people to not only design, but write the whole thing, pay them for extra time to test more thoroughly, and for the liability they're assuming.
There's just one reason why insecure software abounds: because doing it right is expensive, and few people want to pay. Those that do want it (aviation systems, nuclear reactors, etc) do pay for it, and do get it.
Humans are a bit of an odd case in regards to evolution, since we have the technology to correct, to some extent, inferior genetic traits.
For instance, in your case, not growing wisdom teeth is probably a genetic advantage, as they seem to often go wrong, cause pain, etc. However, with modern dentistry, that can be fixed without too much trouble, and will probably not have a significant impact on your chances to reproduce (which is, remember, the deciding factor for retaining/eliminating traits - not whether they are "good" or "bad"). There are numerous examples of traits like this.
Also, remember that evolution is a product of both time, and environment. Especially in modern times, our environment changes damn quickly. It may be that wisdom teeth were useful at some stage in human development. Possibly, before we learnt about oral hygiene, it was useful to have a few more teeth grow later in life. Or perhaps there were certain foods that were more easily masticated by the larger teeth, that modern society has either foregon, or processed into a more manageable form. It may be that wisdom teeth were once useful for survival (and thus, selected) and now are not. They still won't be selected against though, until the having of them impacts chance to reproduce - so we'll probably retain them, though useless, for a good long while.
Firstly, a distinction should probably be made between the mechanism of evolution (living things adapt over time), the concept of abiogenesis (that life arose from non-living matter), and the terms (which I dislike) "macro"evolution and "micro"evolution - meaning respectively, that evolution is responsible for significant differences between organisms, and that evolution is only capable of making slight adjustments to existing organisms (and would be incapable of, say, evolving a single-celled organism into a horse).
Just as the term "creationism" is somewhat of an umbrella term, covering a whole spectrum of more specific beliefs, so the term "evolution", at least in popular usage, seems to conflate a whole bunch of the terms I outlined above. Some elements of evolutionary theory are compatible with some aspects of creationist belief, some are not. Saying that the two are incompatible is a generalization that is probably not justified.
Slashdot Mirror
As Mark Twain said, it's best not to let your schooling get in the way of your education.
Because criminality is genetic. That's why rich people never commit crimes. Or get convicted of them at least...
No. It means that it possibly had some evolutionary advantage at some stage. That it's still around means that it hasn't proved a sufficient disadvantage that those carrying it die before they reproduce.
That's what I find peculiar. As soon as they "discover" that the old adage "not everyone is wired the same way", they immediately declare these people "damaged" or "worthless".
My problem is more with people who, when finding out they are wired differently, then say "oh, it's not my fault, it's my genetics" and proceed to not even try to learn. Obviously this isn't the GP, but for far too many people, things like this (and say, ADHD, Aspergers, etc) become an excuse to be trotted out when convenient, not a hurdle to be overcome.
I don't. Moderate them to hell, yes, but one of the defining features of Slashdot is that they don't censor posts (or at least, seem not to...I seem to remember an incident a few years ago...)
Some games have puzzles, but it's nothing compared to, say, playing a strategy board game, doing a crossword puzzle, playing chess, etc.
Err, computer games can have exactly the same amount of strategy involved in playing a strategy boardgame, chess, etc. One of my favourite games as a kid was Battle Chess. It (obviously) had the same depth of strategy as chess. It also probably kept me interested longer than a physical board would have, due to the funny animations for each piece when they took another.
Computer games can be chess, strategy games, crossword puzzles. Ok, puzzle games/board game simulations have sort of fallen out of the mainstream because they're relatively simple these days, but there's still plenty out there.
It doesn't prove the general case that games make children smarter. It does disprove the general case that games make kids illiterate.
Also, I know that in Final Fantasy 8, at least, enemies scaled with your level. So leveling up didn't make the game easier, it just increased the value of the loot you got from the enemies.
Sometimes, but games can offer their own reward. I remember when I was a kid (ok, a little older than 4, but just starting school) my Dad had a copy of battle chess. My friend and I wanted to see all the different ways the various pieces could take each other (for those who don't know the game, it had animated figures who performed different animations for each possible permutation of piece A taking piece B). So we learnt the rules of chess (if not the strategy) and set about doing it. We couldn't quite get there with all the possible checkmates, but we made a decent go of it.
I know a guy whose 2-year old play World of Warcraft. Not that she "plays" plays it. He's set up macros for /dance, /train and other visually/aurally rewarding commands, and she sets on Daddy's knee and pushes buttons to make the Elf move. It's pretty much the same as any of those kids toys where you push a button to make it beep, and pull a lever to make a light flash. It teaches the concept of cause and effect, and encourages exploration. As long as he doesn't let her learn language skills or manners from the in-game chat, it's all good.
In the face of half a billion dollars in damages awarded by the court! How many people here have criticised Microsoft for ignoring court decisions? But when they actually respond to a court case, suddenly it's evidence that they don't want to follow standards? Get some perspective. When they settled the case and obtained a license, they put Internet Explorer back to how it was before too.
They haven't put it back to how it was before. They plan to, some time in 2008. Which will mean it will have been broken for 2 years. MS had a choice - it could have settled the matter with Eolas, or it could have fought tooth and nail, and in the process, piss off every developer that had an embedded object somewhere in their site. They chose to take the fight, and piss off the developers. The change required to hack around the activation junk MS put in to step around the patent was much more significant than adding a meta tag.
Microsoft have never had a problem with making website developers clean up after their mistakes before. I doubt it's their concern for them now that's influencing their decision. They're just doing whatever's convenient for them at the time, just like they did in the Eolas matter, software quality be damned.
When you have to be compatible with an entire world-wide web's worth of documents and applications, it's impossible for any organisation, even Microsoft, to test adequately
You don't have to test it against the whole www. You have to test it against the specifications. That's what they're there for. The backwards compatibility meta tag would be there for that part of the www that required backwards compatibility. They don't need to test that - just plug in their existing render engine (which they're already doing). But if they're going to promote IE8 as ACID2 compliant, well then, I damn well expect them to test it such that they know it is ACID2 compliant.
They don't even need to break backwards compatibility - they've already got a truckload of aliases in there. Just create a new set of functions with a standard naming convetion, alias all the old names, and deprecate them. A couple of versions later when everyone's using the standards, then you can drop the aliases with little effect.
MS required a bigger change to websites earlier, when they deliberately broke IE6 as a result of the Eolas dispute. If they can break their browser to get around patent disputes, but not to comply with standards, it just shows where their priorities are.
But this is a major new rendering engine, switching to it by default when it is totally unproven is a really bad idea.
The idea is that MS would test their engine before shipping. A bit of an assumption, I know, but that's the theory.
No, what they should do is make the custom META tag trigger the backwards compatibility mode, and make it render standards compliant by default. Inserting a one-line meta-tag is so trivial, that any website that's actually being maintained can do it with no trouble at all. It also means that in 5-10 years, that meta tag will gracefully die out, as nobody will need the backwards compatibility code. You're right, Microsoft has made their own bed in regards to ignoring standards. Sooner or later, they're going to have to lie in it, and break backwards compatibility (even just a tiny amount, as I outlined) in order to get on board with the rest of the world.
While they're at it, how about splitting the element into checkbox, textbox, radiobox, button etc.
Yeah, because nesting divs to hack around all CSS/IEs shortcomings is so much more efficient.
CSS is a wonderful thing, and has the potential to be even better, but its advantages are the ability to separate style and content, and remove code duplication for ease of maintenance. I've found that the size of the actual markup between table-based sites and CSS-based sites (not that the two are mutually exclusive) is pretty consistent.
The other option is stretch to fit its contents - the default behaviour of tables, but one which can't be replicated on block-level elements. The table's width is unknown when you're writing the script, but know when the browser renders it. Tables can be centered that way, but all the CSS purists abuse people for using tables for anything other than tabular data, while reproducing a table's behaviour with a DIV is still problematic (especially considering IE6 bugs).
It doesn't for tables - I have no idea why. However, it will center them if you apply text-align: center to the containing element, or the old align="center" attribute on the table itself.
Setting text-align: center on a div should only affect inline content, not block-level content. It doesn't on IE, but that's what it should do.
The Tree of Life is an expression first used by Charles Darwin to describe the diversity of organisms on Earth and their evolutionary history
I didn't know the Kabbalah involved discussion of evolutionary history. Or possibly you should quote entire sentences rather than out of context fragments which support your unjustified criticisms.
And if your block isn't fixed-width? Seriously, I've never understood why you need to tinker with an object's margins to changes its alignment. A whole stack of CSS stuff like this seems terribly clunky and unintuitive.
Of course, my mine gripe with the centering methods in CSS is that IE6 doesn't support them, but that's not W3Cs fault.
Yup...now just find me one client (who doesn't already do so) who is willing to cover the additional expense of hiring the more qualified people to not only design, but write the whole thing, pay them for extra time to test more thoroughly, and for the liability they're assuming.
There's just one reason why insecure software abounds: because doing it right is expensive, and few people want to pay. Those that do want it (aviation systems, nuclear reactors, etc) do pay for it, and do get it.
You're probably still being to general. That species evolve is a fact. The extent to which their current state is due to evolution is not.
Humans are a bit of an odd case in regards to evolution, since we have the technology to correct, to some extent, inferior genetic traits.
For instance, in your case, not growing wisdom teeth is probably a genetic advantage, as they seem to often go wrong, cause pain, etc. However, with modern dentistry, that can be fixed without too much trouble, and will probably not have a significant impact on your chances to reproduce (which is, remember, the deciding factor for retaining/eliminating traits - not whether they are "good" or "bad"). There are numerous examples of traits like this.
Also, remember that evolution is a product of both time, and environment. Especially in modern times, our environment changes damn quickly. It may be that wisdom teeth were useful at some stage in human development. Possibly, before we learnt about oral hygiene, it was useful to have a few more teeth grow later in life. Or perhaps there were certain foods that were more easily masticated by the larger teeth, that modern society has either foregon, or processed into a more manageable form. It may be that wisdom teeth were once useful for survival (and thus, selected) and now are not. They still won't be selected against though, until the having of them impacts chance to reproduce - so we'll probably retain them, though useless, for a good long while.
Firstly, a distinction should probably be made between the mechanism of evolution (living things adapt over time), the concept of abiogenesis (that life arose from non-living matter), and the terms (which I dislike) "macro"evolution and "micro"evolution - meaning respectively, that evolution is responsible for significant differences between organisms, and that evolution is only capable of making slight adjustments to existing organisms (and would be incapable of, say, evolving a single-celled organism into a horse).
Just as the term "creationism" is somewhat of an umbrella term, covering a whole spectrum of more specific beliefs, so the term "evolution", at least in popular usage, seems to conflate a whole bunch of the terms I outlined above. Some elements of evolutionary theory are compatible with some aspects of creationist belief, some are not. Saying that the two are incompatible is a generalization that is probably not justified.