I'm convinced there will never be a large enough movement at one time to bring a 3rd party into power, and all it will ever do in the current system is help the people you hate get into office.
We need voting reform to eliminate the spoiler effect altogether. Then you'll actually see some viable third parties.
Yeah, just like there's a bunch of people that could have beat Bolt in the Olympics, but chose to let the fakes draw the attention and get on with their life work of... running really fast in secret.
There's nothing wrong with the functionality, but there already exist numerous extensions to do exactly this in Firefox. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to make it a core feature of the browser.
I recently remembered that the internet used to have advertisements. It was a rude awakening. Unfortunately, I remembered because I tried browsing with Chrome, which has neither ad blocking nor plugin support to let me add it.
The Core has different stuff under the hood, but the interface to the OS is still remarkably similar to the original 8086, and what differences there are follow a logical progression from the original design. I'm not saying things shouldn't improve, but when you talk about reinventing UNIX, you're presumably claiming that the basic interfaces that tie it to the hardware or the application layer need to be reinvented as well, which is foolish.
Well, right now it's the '00s, and we're still using hardware architecture created in 1978 (8086 processor). Sure, we've added a couple registers and made the existing ones bigger, but it's fundamentally the same system it always was. Why does the HAVE to be a time when we get rid of UNIX? Reinventing the wheel doesn't get you nearly as far as building incrementally on what you've already got, which is the biggest strength of OSS.
Why in god's name would you statically encode IP addresses when the DNS system is sitting right there to make sure you don't have to do that manual work? Besides, if they're including any reasonably sized site in that list, their DNS entries will resolve to a different IP address depending on the day of the week and the mood of their edge network provider, so it could be any of hundreds of IPs for a single address.
I'm tempted to say you don't know what you're talking about, since using exceptions is one of the worst thing for making all your 'new's actually hit matching delete statements.
Seriously, though, there's a ton of random scary things that can go wrong. Odd flow stuff can break deletions causing memory leaks. Simple operations can cause memory corruption leading to crashes. And god forbid you get to the point of compiling code into multiple libraries, because then you run into memory ownership issues. Yes, it's possible to write correct code in C++, but since it's built to let you have control over more parts of the language there are more things that can go wrong, and more things you can break. It takes more time to make it correct.
It's way, way different than that. If you read any serious linguistic textbook, you'll see that it's not just a bunch of people hearing a word and misunderstanding it. What typically happens is a new generation of children will learn a word as meaning something different than the older generation thinks it means (usually in terms of grammatical application rather than a noun magically changing meanings). It's something to do with how the use of the word interacts with the human brain's innate language processing facilities. It is most emphatically NOT a bunch of adults hearing a word misused by some jackasses in the media and not bothering to educate themselves.
Not in the women's uneven bars. In that case, China gave a substandard performance but ended up tying the USA, and getting the gold out of a technicality. No way was that deserved.
I'd agree with it. Especially in the event where the Chinese girl won the gold on uneven bars even though her routine was clearly inferior to that of the girl she tied who ended up with a silver. There's been cheating and favoritism going wild in these games, to the point where it's clearly no longer just about the best athlete.
I would imagine she'd have to keep lying about it for the rest of her life or risk being stripped of her meddle. The IOC can't very well continue to deny it if she comes out and admits it in the future.
Although I've heard that things are just as tightly controlled on the Firefox project, for example. Honestly, I think any successful open source project is going to have to tightly control submissions from random people, because there are way too many people out there with a "good idea" and varying concepts of what "quality" means.
While I don't agree with your current flamebait mod (you bring up a very common criticism of open source) I do think you're wrong.
Nothing in open source has ever guaranteed that you get to contribute directly to a specific project. When a specific group of developers is maintaining a release (Linus et al, in this case) it's absolutely up to them what code gets in and what doesn't, and who they will accept contributions from. What open source guarantees is that when they make that release, you're free to take the source code they've created and modify it in any way you choose. You're free to fork the project and maintain releases just as strictly as they did, or open it up to all newcomers.
I think you'll find, though, that opening it up to any unknown person right off the bat will trash your project pretty quickly. The problem is, there are hugely varying ideas of what constitutes "correct" code and architecture, and it's just a fact that it takes time to prove that you understand what that means in terms of a large project such as this.
Being forced to consent to a police search before they allow you to do basic chemistry experiments seems pretty screwed up to me. What's next, consenting to have a keystroke logger installed before you're allowed to run a compiler on your home PC?
You're correct, there is no innate right to a job that pays enough to live on, just like there's no innate right to not die starving in a gutter somewhere. But some of us would prefer to live in a society that tries to create those rights, rather than throwing up our hands and going, "Well, that's economics and human nature for you. Better luck next time."
The problem is, the interpretation of that passage out of context seems to lead to the logical fallacy that opposition to one cause automatically equates to support of ANY cause which opposes the same thing. However, it's entirely possible to be both anti-Britain and anti-Germany, to use an example from the quote. It's tantamount to claiming that there are only two possible sides to any conflict, which is obviously false as any reasonably intelligent person can always construct a new viewpoint that stands in support or opposition of both sides.
Besides which, the man's other writing clearly displayed a realization of the consequences of this kind of "with us or against us" thinking, and it was not a bright world that he saw emerging from that sentiment.
First, fast food jobs are NOT held only by high school kids. There are plenty of people who depend on that for their income, because they can't find other jobs.
But my main question is, what authority has proclaimed that fast food "ought" to be a bargain? Is there some law somewhere that I'm not aware of? Some moral imperative? Just because something has been some way in the past doesn't mean it has to continue that way.
I'm not sure how much I believe this, but I've heard from several sources that the reason ex-pat Cubans in Florida want the government gone is so they can get back their ancestral estates, which are currently property of the government / public. The ones who left were the landowners who admittedly get the short end of the stick under Communism. Of course Donald Trump and Bill Gates (or at least their equivalents) want the embargo to continue.
Ah, fair enough. By that definition, though, we've already done that. The banana and the corn plant are both hugely modified from their original form from before man got ahold of them, to the point that they really are new species.
you had an intelligent designer (a human) who introduced an artificial environment to a species and then watched what happened. I don't think the bacteria would really have ever been in that type of environment in the natural world.
Why do you think they'd never be in that environment in the natural world?
Anyway, just because the conditions here are man-made doesn't invalidate the experiment. The scientists there created stressful conditions and watched what happened. Organisms and evolution react to stressful conditions the same way whether they're natural or artificial.
No, and here's why: it seems that species tend to reach a stable point, in which they are well suited enough to their environment that most mutations don't add much survival ability. It's when the environment becomes stressful -- lack of food, new predators, etc -- that mutations may confer some larger benefit and have a mechanism to spread through a population. In addition stress tends to lead to more mutations because the organism is not surviving well. Conditions in the last couple thousand years have not been very stressful in evolutionary terms, especially among the animals we have records of. The period right after dinosaurs died out, on the other hand... no matter what killed them, there was at least a large ecological niche left to fill, which is not true today.
Maybe you're confused about the definition of "or", but you can still have science without direct experimentation.
Anyway, there IS loads of experimentation going on around evolution. See the announcement the other month where a 20 year experiment saw E. Coli mutate into an entirely different species in a stressful environment for an example. It directly contradicts the idea that we've never seen a beneficial mutation be passed along.
Slashdot Mirror
DVD sales are steady, though. Granted the article only examines the trend between last week and this week, so both numbers are next to meaningless...
I'm convinced there will never be a large enough movement at one time to bring a 3rd party into power, and all it will ever do in the current system is help the people you hate get into office.
We need voting reform to eliminate the spoiler effect altogether. Then you'll actually see some viable third parties.
Yeah, just like there's a bunch of people that could have beat Bolt in the Olympics, but chose to let the fakes draw the attention and get on with their life work of... running really fast in secret.
There's nothing wrong with the functionality, but there already exist numerous extensions to do exactly this in Firefox. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to make it a core feature of the browser.
I recently remembered that the internet used to have advertisements. It was a rude awakening. Unfortunately, I remembered because I tried browsing with Chrome, which has neither ad blocking nor plugin support to let me add it.
The Core has different stuff under the hood, but the interface to the OS is still remarkably similar to the original 8086, and what differences there are follow a logical progression from the original design. I'm not saying things shouldn't improve, but when you talk about reinventing UNIX, you're presumably claiming that the basic interfaces that tie it to the hardware or the application layer need to be reinvented as well, which is foolish.
Well, right now it's the '00s, and we're still using hardware architecture created in 1978 (8086 processor). Sure, we've added a couple registers and made the existing ones bigger, but it's fundamentally the same system it always was. Why does the HAVE to be a time when we get rid of UNIX? Reinventing the wheel doesn't get you nearly as far as building incrementally on what you've already got, which is the biggest strength of OSS.
Why in god's name would you statically encode IP addresses when the DNS system is sitting right there to make sure you don't have to do that manual work? Besides, if they're including any reasonably sized site in that list, their DNS entries will resolve to a different IP address depending on the day of the week and the mood of their edge network provider, so it could be any of hundreds of IPs for a single address.
I'm tempted to say you don't know what you're talking about, since using exceptions is one of the worst thing for making all your 'new's actually hit matching delete statements.
Seriously, though, there's a ton of random scary things that can go wrong. Odd flow stuff can break deletions causing memory leaks. Simple operations can cause memory corruption leading to crashes. And god forbid you get to the point of compiling code into multiple libraries, because then you run into memory ownership issues. Yes, it's possible to write correct code in C++, but since it's built to let you have control over more parts of the language there are more things that can go wrong, and more things you can break. It takes more time to make it correct.
It's way, way different than that. If you read any serious linguistic textbook, you'll see that it's not just a bunch of people hearing a word and misunderstanding it. What typically happens is a new generation of children will learn a word as meaning something different than the older generation thinks it means (usually in terms of grammatical application rather than a noun magically changing meanings). It's something to do with how the use of the word interacts with the human brain's innate language processing facilities. It is most emphatically NOT a bunch of adults hearing a word misused by some jackasses in the media and not bothering to educate themselves.
Not in the women's uneven bars. In that case, China gave a substandard performance but ended up tying the USA, and getting the gold out of a technicality. No way was that deserved.
I'd agree with it. Especially in the event where the Chinese girl won the gold on uneven bars even though her routine was clearly inferior to that of the girl she tied who ended up with a silver. There's been cheating and favoritism going wild in these games, to the point where it's clearly no longer just about the best athlete.
I would imagine she'd have to keep lying about it for the rest of her life or risk being stripped of her meddle. The IOC can't very well continue to deny it if she comes out and admits it in the future.
Although I've heard that things are just as tightly controlled on the Firefox project, for example. Honestly, I think any successful open source project is going to have to tightly control submissions from random people, because there are way too many people out there with a "good idea" and varying concepts of what "quality" means.
While I don't agree with your current flamebait mod (you bring up a very common criticism of open source) I do think you're wrong.
Nothing in open source has ever guaranteed that you get to contribute directly to a specific project. When a specific group of developers is maintaining a release (Linus et al, in this case) it's absolutely up to them what code gets in and what doesn't, and who they will accept contributions from. What open source guarantees is that when they make that release, you're free to take the source code they've created and modify it in any way you choose. You're free to fork the project and maintain releases just as strictly as they did, or open it up to all newcomers.
I think you'll find, though, that opening it up to any unknown person right off the bat will trash your project pretty quickly. The problem is, there are hugely varying ideas of what constitutes "correct" code and architecture, and it's just a fact that it takes time to prove that you understand what that means in terms of a large project such as this.
Being forced to consent to a police search before they allow you to do basic chemistry experiments seems pretty screwed up to me. What's next, consenting to have a keystroke logger installed before you're allowed to run a compiler on your home PC?
You're correct, there is no innate right to a job that pays enough to live on, just like there's no innate right to not die starving in a gutter somewhere. But some of us would prefer to live in a society that tries to create those rights, rather than throwing up our hands and going, "Well, that's economics and human nature for you. Better luck next time."
The problem is, the interpretation of that passage out of context seems to lead to the logical fallacy that opposition to one cause automatically equates to support of ANY cause which opposes the same thing. However, it's entirely possible to be both anti-Britain and anti-Germany, to use an example from the quote. It's tantamount to claiming that there are only two possible sides to any conflict, which is obviously false as any reasonably intelligent person can always construct a new viewpoint that stands in support or opposition of both sides.
Besides which, the man's other writing clearly displayed a realization of the consequences of this kind of "with us or against us" thinking, and it was not a bright world that he saw emerging from that sentiment.
First, fast food jobs are NOT held only by high school kids. There are plenty of people who depend on that for their income, because they can't find other jobs.
But my main question is, what authority has proclaimed that fast food "ought" to be a bargain? Is there some law somewhere that I'm not aware of? Some moral imperative? Just because something has been some way in the past doesn't mean it has to continue that way.
When the forum administrator has a total of 20 posts...
I'm not sure how much I believe this, but I've heard from several sources that the reason ex-pat Cubans in Florida want the government gone is so they can get back their ancestral estates, which are currently property of the government / public. The ones who left were the landowners who admittedly get the short end of the stick under Communism. Of course Donald Trump and Bill Gates (or at least their equivalents) want the embargo to continue.
Ah, fair enough. By that definition, though, we've already done that. The banana and the corn plant are both hugely modified from their original form from before man got ahold of them, to the point that they really are new species.
Why do you think they'd never be in that environment in the natural world?
Anyway, just because the conditions here are man-made doesn't invalidate the experiment. The scientists there created stressful conditions and watched what happened. Organisms and evolution react to stressful conditions the same way whether they're natural or artificial.
No, and here's why: it seems that species tend to reach a stable point, in which they are well suited enough to their environment that most mutations don't add much survival ability. It's when the environment becomes stressful -- lack of food, new predators, etc -- that mutations may confer some larger benefit and have a mechanism to spread through a population. In addition stress tends to lead to more mutations because the organism is not surviving well. Conditions in the last couple thousand years have not been very stressful in evolutionary terms, especially among the animals we have records of. The period right after dinosaurs died out, on the other hand... no matter what killed them, there was at least a large ecological niche left to fill, which is not true today.
Maybe you're confused about the definition of "or", but you can still have science without direct experimentation.
Anyway, there IS loads of experimentation going on around evolution. See the announcement the other month where a 20 year experiment saw E. Coli mutate into an entirely different species in a stressful environment for an example. It directly contradicts the idea that we've never seen a beneficial mutation be passed along.