So instead of versions, we'll have a big vector of flags, where each flag indicates whether or not a particular HTML feature is required, supported, etc.? And a given web page will work with a given browser only if their two flag vectors are compatible?
Why would you say that? Fighting for peace is a short-term investment in violence to curb longer-term violence. I.e., stopping the Axis in WWII probably prevented drawn-out wars in North and South America and Australia.
In contrast, "fucking for chastity" is unlikely to be any kind of investment in longer-term chastity.
It sounds like you're trying to make an argument against any kind of war, but your argument doesn't seem very valid to me.
Can anyone give a quick explanation of the relative pros/cons of Firefox4 vs. Chrome?
Although I find Chrome's interface a little uncomfortable (as a long-time Firefox user), I don't really know if there's a big reason to prefer one over the other. So a big delay of FF4 seems kind of irrelevant to me: I'd just use FF3 or Chrome.
It seems like Obama has betrayed a large fraction of the ideals he stated during his campaign.
What I'd like to know is, during his campaign, did he...
(a) Lie about those ideals, never intending to pursue them?
(b) Tell the truth about what his ideals where, but know he was exaggerating about being able to accomplish all of them?
(c) Intend to achieve them all, but not realize that he could only chose a handful to push through?
(d) Once in office (and with access to all classified info), realize that some of his campaign promises were unwise, although he believed them to be wise at the time?
The answers to these may suggest whether we as citizens need to be more realistic about what's really possible (for example, effective counterintelligence while prosecuting your state torturers), or whether Obama is really just a far worse person than people give him credit for.
I wonder if there should be laws that make persons working for banks, utility companies, etc. criminally and civilly liable for violating that organization's IA rules.
I'm talking about organizations responsible for information systems whose compromize could lead to significant public harm.
I'm not saying it's good that America does these things. I have a tremendous sense of schadenfreude about the American government feeling some pain for its indefinite detention and torturing. As an American, I'm disgusted that my government has betrayed our ideals, but I also know that as one person I'm very unlikely to effect change. Maybe Assange can take our government to task more effecitively than any normal American citizen could.
I'm just getting going on GPU programming. I was thinking to go with OpenCL (pushed by AMD/ATI ) over CUDA (pushed by nVidia) because I thought AMD looked more likely to survive in the long term. But now it's getting harder to tell which company is safer to rely upon.
Anyone know whether or not Dell's M6xxx mobile workstation line will start offering Sandy Bridge processors on/around the official Sandy Bridge launch date?
I've read that Dell will roll out a new product (M6600) with Sandy Bridge, but I don't know if it's happening this week, or something later.
I think you're ignoring an idiomatic detail about the word 'sans'.
In all the usages I can think of, 'sans' refers to something that's a proper subset of something else. For example, "My cable television contract has all the channels sans HBO."
In the original post, it's not clear of what set "issue" is a member. That's jarring to the reader.
Therefore I think the way it was used was at least unpleasant and possibly also unidiomatic. I'd say that made it a bad word choice.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not think "best efforts" means what they think it means. If it was their "best" effort, there would be no room for improvement.
Is it that showtune involving the phrase "modern major general" that Sideshow Bob sang on the Simpsons once?
So instead of versions, we'll have a big vector of flags, where each flag indicates whether or not a particular HTML feature is required, supported, etc.? And a given web page will work with a given browser only if their two flag vectors are compatible?
This is stupid. Standards exist for a reason.
Damn HTML. Let me try this in Fortran instead:
IF N .LE. 1, not just IF N .EQ. 1
If n = 1, not just N == 1.
Why would you say that? Fighting for peace is a short-term investment in violence to curb longer-term violence. I.e., stopping the Axis in WWII probably prevented drawn-out wars in North and South America and Australia.
In contrast, "fucking for chastity" is unlikely to be any kind of investment in longer-term chastity.
It sounds like you're trying to make an argument against any kind of war, but your argument doesn't seem very valid to me.
Now if only they'd get Season 7 of "The Office".
I realize that's almost a complete non-sequiter. I just want to see Season 7, and I don't want to put up with Hulu's commercials.
Can anyone give a quick explanation of the relative pros/cons of Firefox4 vs. Chrome?
Although I find Chrome's interface a little uncomfortable (as a long-time Firefox user), I don't really know if there's a big reason to prefer one over the other. So a big delay of FF4 seems kind of irrelevant to me: I'd just use FF3 or Chrome.
Here's a pretty good list: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/
The ones I especially care about are:
No. 234: A five-day reading period for proposed legislation.
No. 491: Provide an annual report on "state of our energy future"
No. 517: Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN
No. 518: Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.
No. 525: Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year
Also, from this list: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=91286
Probably the most important to me is #10: greater government transparency.
And from John Stewart: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/08/jon-stewart-bashes-obamas-broken-campaign-promises : Closing Gitmo within a year of his campaign promise being made.
It's also interesting to note the things which I felt he'd promised, but which PolitiFact (which I generally trust) has no record of:
It would seem that I confused the general image he projected with actual promises on some important issues.
You know, you see a lot of false dichotomies these days. But it's not often one gets to see a true, blue false trichotomy. So thank you for that.
I was trying to enumerate all of the plausible explanations I could think of for why Obama failed to fulfill core campaign promises.
I wasn't trying to provide a logically closed set of alternatives.
At least regarding the invasion of Iraq, the "Patriot" Act, etc., you didn't see many Democrats question him much either. At least not publicly.
It seems like Obama has betrayed a large fraction of the ideals he stated during his campaign.
What I'd like to know is, during his campaign, did he...
(a) Lie about those ideals, never intending to pursue them?
(b) Tell the truth about what his ideals where, but know he was exaggerating about being able to accomplish all of them?
(c) Intend to achieve them all, but not realize that he could only chose a handful to push through?
(d) Once in office (and with access to all classified info), realize that some of his campaign promises were unwise, although he believed them to be wise at the time?
The answers to these may suggest whether we as citizens need to be more realistic about what's really possible (for example, effective counterintelligence while prosecuting your state torturers), or whether Obama is really just a far worse person than people give him credit for.
IBM customer service? Are you kidding me? I think you must have never dealt with IBM.
They won't even fart at you unless you have a $50 million support contract with them.
I wonder if there should be laws that make persons working for banks, utility companies, etc. criminally and civilly liable for violating that organization's IA rules.
I'm talking about organizations responsible for information systems whose compromize could lead to significant public harm.
Touche.
I'm not saying it's good that America does these things. I have a tremendous sense of schadenfreude about the American government feeling some pain for its indefinite detention and torturing. As an American, I'm disgusted that my government has betrayed our ideals, but I also know that as one person I'm very unlikely to effect change. Maybe Assange can take our government to task more effecitively than any normal American citizen could.
I'm just getting going on GPU programming. I was thinking to go with OpenCL (pushed by AMD/ATI ) over CUDA (pushed by nVidia) because I thought AMD looked more likely to survive in the long term. But now it's getting harder to tell which company is safer to rely upon.
I think we can both agree that this line of humor should never have begun.
If I accidentally log in any time in the next 13 days I do.
Actually, I was just making a joke about how important I am.
The reports fail to disclose that I just deleted my account.
So, I'm just saying, the valuations need to take that into consideration.
Anyone know whether or not Dell's M6xxx mobile workstation line will start offering Sandy Bridge processors on/around the official Sandy Bridge launch date?
I've read that Dell will roll out a new product (M6600) with Sandy Bridge, but I don't know if it's happening this week, or something later.
Ooh, good point. I concede.
Fair point (I assume), but what was idiomatic in the 17th(?) century isn't necessarily idiomatic in the 21st.
I think you're ignoring an idiomatic detail about the word 'sans'.
In all the usages I can think of, 'sans' refers to something that's a proper subset of something else. For example, "My cable television contract has all the channels sans HBO."
In the original post, it's not clear of what set "issue" is a member. That's jarring to the reader.
Therefore I think the way it was used was at least unpleasant and possibly also unidiomatic. I'd say that made it a bad word choice.