Ususally it's done through (if I understand your question correctly), relative positioning, which is actually preferred OVER absolute positioning for certain elements.
For instance, it would be relatively simple to put the left hand navigation in to a single
tag, and then under that put other
OR
tags to separate the sections. The overall, encasing
is positioned absolutely, then each one inside is positioned relatively, with the same left alignment.
For the comment section, a similar scheme is followed, but with lower sections adjusting the left alignment.
I haven't seen anything on/. that I don't think could be done with intelligent use of CSS along side XHTML 1.1 strict--without the use of tables.
I am currently doing a site for my employer where I am using tables, but it would have been equally possible to set it up with nested div tags. The only reason I am using tables is because it CAN take some time to get IE to render the CSS properly--it does NOT support all of CSS1, and very little of CSS2. AFAIK, CSS3 still isn't solid enough for anyone to support.
check this out: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/
I know its not great, but I think that a major site such a/. "encouraging" svg support in browsers would be cool.
I need to reboot into linux, but I also see that there is a SVG enabled version of firebird. Unfortunately I cannot find any information about how functional it is (or isn't).
Having read some of the other posts in this thread, there is a solution--DON'T use TABLES!!! I personally think that tables are a bad idea, and should be avoided at all possible.
In most cases, one can replace tables with division tags, which work much better in general. The only caveat is that IE tends to break CSS based DIV tags if you use the wrong type of positioning. To be specific, if you use position: fixed; IE will NOT position this correctly, and really has trouble with multiple elements being fixed position. Mozilla actually fixes this position relative to your screen, not the rest of the page, allowing things like floating menu bars without crazy javascript solutions.
It would be possible, (not necessarily convenient or easy) to migrate to a non-table based layout that would LOOK just about identical for most people, and solve the problems you mention.
Better yet, lets move to SVG--good browsers handle it, and poor ones (ie., IE) don't.
(Although, on checking, it seems that mozilla doesn't have perfect or complete support for some of the more advanced SVG stuff.)
There are a lot of advantages to moving to SVG, one of them being file size --it's TINY!!! Even compared to PNG. (At least, this has been my experience using SodiPodi, which uses SVG natively, but can export to PNG.)
It also means that the images will look better when the size is changed, and some of the old pictures used as icons could be scaled to fit user preferences and give much cleaner results.
You obviously know nothing regarding categorical variables, which is what pie charts are used for (as are several of the more common statistical analyses). IF you are going to say X % of folks use linux,and y% use windows, you had better have a category for z % who use both, and w% who use neither (and probably a% for those who use apple).
A categorical variable is considered discrete--on or the other, NEVER both. The most common example of this is biological gender. You are male or female, NOT both. Although recently it has become possible to change which you are.
If NP is so cheap howsacome my electric bill is TWICE what it was when I lived in an area without NP? Now that I am dependent on Duke Power, my electric bill has doubled.
One person tried to claim it was due to increased humidity, which made it harder to cool my apartment--but I am NOT running the AC right now. So tell my--why is it so @#$@#%#@$ing expensive?
Personally, though, on a more serious note, I don't care where my power comes from, as long as it meets two criteria: 1--reliable. The fewer surges, spikes, poorly conditioned lines and whatnot, the better. 2--cheap. After #1 is met, I want to have decent prices.
I will grant that concerns such as the environment are important, but as long as we are at it, Coal processing is just as dirty as NP, and then there are the massive ill effects of coal mining on the environment (not to mention the miners). NP is a great way to cleanly produce electricity. Just got to figure out a way to deal with the waste material (I still think there has to be a practical, industrial use for the stuff. We just haven't created a demand for an oversupply of the material. Someone invents a way to convert plutonium (or whatever) to a safe end product, it will change the way we look at reactors.
There are merits to that, but there are two serious flaws with the idea of using nukes 1) it causes lots of waste, radiation, etc. This would be more than a minor inconvenience, especially considering the resulting fallout.
2) its illegal! I am pretty sure that there was an international treaty signed to ban nukes in space.
Other than, go for it--sounds like a great way to get rid of all of our spare nukes
the word is heuristics. Computers stink at heuristics in comparison to humans, which are so good at them that it takes considerably more time to think through an algorithm for us than it does for a computer.
Personally, I believe it has to do with 3 aspects of the human mind (put into computing terms). 1. Parrallel. the human brain processes in parallel. 2. Non-binary the human brain is NOT limited to binary language (in fact, I would guess that it uses a flexible base-n math system if you want to quantify it. The really nice thing is that n may or may not be finite--how does the molecule really communicate its message? There are so many methods that it boggles) 3. Non-linearity. The human mind can branch and skip whole sectors of input based on very little information. It can also do some wild tricks on how it handles associations.
Of course, computers do have some serious advantages--one is persistent memory. A computer can always tell if it knows something or not. Sometimes it isn't programmed well enough to do so, but if it were, it has the capacity. Humans don't. We frequently don't know our own capabilities, and that is a big setback.
(as a side note, next time you hear someone talk about how humans only use 10% of their brain power--LAUGH. Cognitive psychologists have effectively debunked that myth for quite some time)
having read some of the other replies to your comment, I still feel the need to comment.
Milgram was a great researcher, and his results were shocking, even if his methodology was a bit questionable ethically. There are limits to what any study can show, and just because the statistics show a clear direction, it does not mean that there are no exceptions. If, for example, your p-value is 0.0023 (a respectable value in any research), there are still some factors that must be considered. One is variability. I don't know how much variation there was in Milgram's results, but I promise you that there was SOME. The other factor is population size, which means that some of the time you will be wrong in your prediction (in this case, though, it would only be.23 % of the time, which is pretty good--it's like saying all but 598,000 of the US (based on pop. 260,000,000) would do exactly as the subjects in Milgrams expirement.
Now, there are a lot of other factors involved that limit the generalizeability of his (and almost all other psychology) expirements, and I don't have time to iterate each of them.
I will say that I personally hold no one guilty for something that they did not personally do. That means that if my ancestors (heck, even parents) did something truly outrageous, that does not mean that I am party to those actions or condone them. It would only mean that I had been born in rather unfortunate circumstances. This is of course hypothetical. In reality, I was fortunate to have rather well educated parents, who also tried their best to be good and decent people.
Take a more extreme example. Let's say Uday Hussein had turned out different than he did, and was in reality a kind, gentle and thoughtful person who happened to be born to a cruel and sadistic father. Let us further imagine that somehow, against all odds, he made it to adulthood without being totally corrupted (yes, I am stretching it a bit).
Now let's suppose country x, tired of saddam's brutal and oppressive regime, invades, kills saddam, and tries to free the country. Should they execute all of saddam's household just because of his actions? NO! Rather, it would make more sense to judge each on an individual basis and only punish those who were guilty of the same offenses.
Now, I realize that there are a lot of politically charged ideas and situations in my example, but it is just an example.
No, I want to exonerate myself because I haven't ever done anything of the magnitude that the nazis did. I am not perfect, but generally, I try to be a good person. Can I say (most people can't) that I would NEVER have gone along with Hitler? NO, but I can say that I don't think I would, and that many people did not go along.
Sorry, your assertion does not logically flow. As for some of the expirements you mention, some are real, some are more mythical. Milgram and Tuskagee are real. Some of the assertions that I have heard regarding military/CIA mind control expirements are dubious at best, however (note: I am not saying that there were no unethical expirements, just that the exact nature of some of them is still unknown, and may never be known). That said, I do not condone them, and I am certainly not guilty for actions committed by the government of any country before, during or after my time, unless I happen to be in a powerful enough position to both know of and stop such actions.
No, you cannot state that I would've probably done the same, except in a statistical manner of speaking. Unfortunately, sometimes statistics are completely unable to predict individual behavior, since most tests are based on means or correlations, instead of actual individual scores (remember if n10 (or even if n20), be very careful of the studies findings).
Actually the saddest part of the whole experiment is that we don't know what happened to the kid. His mother, seeing the effect the research was having on him, removed him from the program, and his real name has never been known.
The original plan was to desensitize him so that the phobia would no longer affect him. However, that part never happened, so he left the research before the fears could be removed.
Subsequent research into phobias has been somewhat embarrassing at times, though for very different reasons: We now know that you cannot teach pigs to be afraid of snakes...apparently it is so instinctual for them to eat snakes, and they have such thick skin that snakes can't hurt them, that they are immune to the otherwise universal phobia (99% of all animals are innately afraid of snakes, and develop intense phobias after only 1 or 2 trials).
It just goes to show that truly expiremental research is the most informative, but is so often unethical when done on humans that we end up learning a lot about the behavior of rats and pigs, and how they react to certain drugs. Its a shame really.
You are mistaken in one thing though--we DO use the information the nazis gleaned from their experimentation. Sorry to bust your bubble, but they made vast advances in the medical fields with their very unethical methods that would take us much longer today.
DON'T get me wrong, though. I AM IN NO WAY ADVOCATING, CONDONING OR APPROVING OF, what the nazis did, their methods, or of utilizing such procedures. It is one of the most dispicable acts in the history of mankind. Nevertheless, it is a fact that society uses the information they obtained through these methods.
This is not an uncommon situation. In psychology there are a LOT of classic expirements that would not be performed now due to ethical concerns. That in NO WAY limits the usefulness of that information or the fact that is has been used as the basis for a lot of theoretical framework. An example would be the researcher at John Hopkins Medical Center who conditioned a young child to be very phobic of anything that was white and fluffy. Such experiments are not ethical, but much of what we know about phobias and treating them is a result of his research.
Flame me if you wish, but we DO use information gathered in an unethical manner frequently--as long as it is regarded as accurate, which the data gathered by the nazis is. They were, if nothing else good can be said, very methodical in their research.
I have a question, tho many probably know the answer. As a disclaimer, I AM NOT A CYCLIST!! (ianac?).
that said, wouldn't be possible to mount the derailleur ABOVE the gears so that it is not so prone to snag on rocks, etc? I would think that would help a lot.
Thanks. I appreciate this type of response--pointing at solid alternatives that I haven't fully considered, instead of flaming me for being some type of luz3r.
I am still curious about why gentoo doesn't live up to it's social contract, though.
The point of gentoo is not to "LEARN LINUX INSIDE AND OUT"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once again, this time from the social contract located at: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml I quote: "Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools. When a tool is doing its job perfectly, you might not even be very aware of its presence, because it does not interfere and make its presence known, nor does it force you to interact with it when you don't want it to. The tool serves the user rather than the user serving the tool."
"The future goal of Gentoo is to continue to strive to create near-ideal tools. Tools that can accomodate the needs of many different users (all with divergent goals) with ease are extremely powerful. Don't you love it when you find a tool that does exactly what you want to do? Doesn't it feel great? Our mission is to give that sensation to as many people as possible."
Am I wrong?? Or is this document not truly the social contract? Maybe I am misinterpreting a publically available document that purports to describe the purpose of a publically available distro of an open (public) source program.
I want gentoo because of the reported wonders that are emerge. I want linux because it is better, more stable, and less restrictive than Windows. I would get a Mac if I had the cash, but I still want linux, because of certain programs that are available under linux that I happen to like!!
Is that really too much to ask? If I had programming skills I would create the GUI installer for gentoo myself. But I don't, and likely never will, because I choose to dedicate my life to something else (if you want to know what, read some of my postings, its in there).
Your attitude is what annoys me about linux more than anything else. Not an attitude of wanting to help others, but an attitude of "get lost." It seems to me that this attitude is in direct contrast to the stated goals of gentoo.
I have to agree with you on this one. The grandparent is correct that gentoo docs seem very explicit, but they are not as good as he seems to think. As a noob to gentoo, I could NOT get it to work on reasonably common hardware (I don't have anything even remotely exotic in terms of hardware).
Gentoo's lack of decent documentation for post install configuration is also annoying. I quote: "Configuring a USB Mouse
A USB mouse is your friend on a high resolution screen. The kernel takes care of the scaling so you don't have to move your mouse five times across the pad to make it across the screen.
The first thing that has to be done is the installation of the kernel modules. The modules that will be needed for a USB mouse to work are usbmouse, mousedev, hid, usbcore, usb-uhci, and input. After the necessary kernel configuration is done, insmod the modules."
This might be useful to someone who has a fair bit of experience, but as a novice linux user, one of the reasons I want to use Gentoo is all the great things I have heard about emerge, which would make using the system much less time consuming. I personally want that, but can't seem to have it because the docs are not explicit on how to do the necessary kernel configuration, "insmod" the modules, or even how to obtain the modules (yes, I tried to emerge them, but apparently that isn't what they want you to do).
Let me lift another quote from their website:
"The most fundamental issue is designing a technology that allows us and others to do what they want to do, without restriction.... The future goal of Gentoo is to continue to strive to create near-ideal tools. Tools that can accomodate the needs of many different users (all with divergent goals) with ease are extremely powerful. Don't you love it when you find a tool that does exactly what you want to do? Doesn't it feel great? Our mission is to give that sensation to as many people as possible."
If the mission of gentoo is to give as many people as possible "that sensation", then does it not logically follow that they would want to give them a choice to use a well developed ("near ideaL") tool to install gentoo? The unfortunate thing is that most will have differing expectations of a "near ideal" tool. For me, and apparently many others, the "near ideal" tool for installing gentoo would include a GUI installer that results in a system configured for use on FIRST reboot. It would also allow the option to compile packages via this method or to use their GRP packages for a speedy install on older hardware.
I for one, though not a programmer, would be willing to help design the interface and make it more friendly to noobs. However, I lack the ability to do everything necessary for such a project (such as program anything very useful in C, or a similar language--and I doubt that my skills with PHP will be much help either...)
Debian, to get back on topic, takes a slightly different philosophy to the table, and that's fine. Debian, as I understand it, is all about stability. That's fine. But if a distro claims it wants to provide their tools as many people as possible, then they should do what they can to achieve that goal--not feel smug because they installed it and I can't, and happy because that keeps noobs off the forums!!!
As a side note: I don't know the actual developers of Gentoo, and if the "gentoo social contract" is a true indication of their actual attitudes, then I respect that. It is an admirable document with many wonderful ideas. I personally feel frustrated because I don't feel like those ideals and goals are being met. If you are gentoo developer and are reading this: I applaud your work, and hope to be able to benefit from it. I am afraid, however, that until the installation is somewhat more suited for my needs, that I will be out of luck.
I agree with the grandparent--the gentoo install is not a) for the faint of heart, b) for noobs. I have now tried at least 5 times to install gentoo, without success--there are a massive number of scenarios that the installation instructions fail to address, and some of them are pertinent to what a newcomer would need.
Oh yeah, I am also a little miffed about the lack of a GUI installer as well. Gentoo, according to their site, is supposed to be about choice. There is a choice I want, that isn't there--a GUI installer. I think GRP is a step in the right direction for those of use who are interested in ease of use over custom kernel and compile.
I think you are forgetting what most people forget. Since the US has a relatively short maximum presidency, the actions of one president are very frequently reversed by another. Even if they are the same political party.
The idea of installing and supporting dictators is obviously a bad one. But if at some future point someone gets a clue (after being smacked with a clue stick in the form of 9/11), you can hardly blame them for wanting to undo previous mistakes.
I can see where it could be seen as hypocritical, but really, if we are cleaning up past mistakes, can't it be seen as owning up to past stupidity and therefore a good thing?
The time when it is really hypocrisy is if the SAME president simultaneously removes a dictator while installing another (either there or somewhere else). If I thought GW was doing that (which I don't), then I would be first in line to toss him out of office.
I do agree with your last sentence--yes we should support true democracy, and not just when it is convenient. Unfortunately, how do you tell the difference between a president who is looking ahead, and a president who is working for the NOW, when both will be out of office within 8 years (maximum).
In so many ways, the eight year maximum is a wonderful thing. The one downside is that it tends to encourage short-sighted, quick benefit programs that make one's own political party look good within about a year. The electoral college actually exacerbates this problem, as it makes presidents more likely to cater to those within their party.
Personally, I think that Presidential elections should be party-nuetral (like some mayorial elections), and anyone with more than x signatures would be allowed to run (say 5,000 or 10,000). This would allow for a much more diverse and interesting election, as well as help clean up some of the politics.
For those who boohoo this idea, remember what happened recently in CA--Arnold got more than enough votes to be considered a clear winner. Yes there were problems with that, but it was obvious that a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have considered running for governor did because entry to the election race was much easier than normal.
I personally think entry to the presidential elections should be easier, barring only a criminal record other than minor traffic violations (got theft? no election for you! got DUI? no election for you!).
however, by the same token, if you have open source software, it is not necessary to adhere to the standards, as anyone can replicate your file formats and methods.
The thing about this is that having all three makes everyone's life easier--except that of those people who make money off of being closed, which is what M$ does.
What M$ knows, but doesn't admit, is that they could make money off an open source windows. It isn't likely that they would make as MUCH money, but that is true of all commodity items (take televisions, for example: they are commodity, pretty much anyone can make one, but yet plenty of companies make money off of manufacturing and selling them).
Commodity markets are tougher to become ultra-rich in, but they do drive innovation and "new" features. If we got rid of the DMCA, and made it so that all programs were open source, only those companies with the best products would make very much money. There would still be a lot of other companies though, specializing in niche markets, and selling uber-customized versions of some OSS.
I spefically stated that not all businesses and Republicans want to shaft workers. Anyone who is up on modern business strategy would have to be an absolute IDIOT to think like that.
Of course, I am something of an anomaly--I am currently studying for my master's degree in Industrial Psychology. This field, for those who aren't familiar with it, is concerned with improving working conditions on the premise that this will help companies save money. This field would, by your standards, be entirely populated with Democrats, but it is not, and I am certainly not a Democrat.
I cannot agree that democrats what to do the RIGHT thing anymore than do republicans. That is an image designed to make people like them for the express purpose of gaining power. If you think that democrats would EVER vote less power based on the idea that it is the right thing, you are sadly mistaken. As far as it goes, neither would republicans.
I find it amusing, personally that you talk about lack of military service when referring to republicans, and being willing to send people to war. Clinton was extremely notorious for skipping war service, but had no problems with sending people to die in Kosovo.
Sorry, I can't buy that line either.
As for personal responsibility, yes it is a strange line, but when you think about capitalism, and entrepenurialism, it is all about responsibility and making the most of yourself.
Democrats, OTOH, seem to want to make society dependent on saftey nets, social programs, and whatnot--all of which make the majority (populace at large) of the country dependent on the minority (the government). While I am at it, yes I know the feeling of being a minority--the ONLY person of a controversial religion in my grade school, the ONLY male in a LOT of psychology courses. It is very hard to sit through a class and listen to women bash men! Just as it would be hard for them to listen to men bash women!
Lastly, I stated clearly that I do have issues with both parties, and I meant it. But don't tout the standard democrat lines without knowing that both parties have flaws.
And yes, I still prefer the republicans, despite your excellent treatise on why they are so evil.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, it would be relatively simple to put the left hand navigation in to a single tag, and then under that put other OR
tags to separate the sections. The overall, encasing
is positioned absolutely, then each one inside is positioned relatively, with the same left alignment.For the comment section, a similar scheme is followed, but with lower sections adjusting the left alignment.
I haven't seen anything on
I am currently doing a site for my employer where I am using tables, but it would have been equally possible to set it up with nested div tags. The only reason I am using tables is because it CAN take some time to get IE to render the CSS properly--it does NOT support all of CSS1, and very little of CSS2. AFAIK, CSS3 still isn't solid enough for anyone to support.
check this out:
/. "encouraging" svg support in browsers would be cool.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/
I know its not great, but I think that a major site such a
I need to reboot into linux, but I also see that there is a SVG enabled version of firebird. Unfortunately I cannot find any information about how functional it is (or isn't).
Having read some of the other posts in this thread, there is a solution--DON'T use TABLES!!! I personally think that tables are a bad idea, and should be avoided at all possible.
In most cases, one can replace tables with division tags, which work much better in general. The only caveat is that IE tends to break CSS based DIV tags if you use the wrong type of positioning. To be specific, if you use position: fixed; IE will NOT position this correctly, and really has trouble with multiple elements being fixed position. Mozilla actually fixes this position relative to your screen, not the rest of the page, allowing things like floating menu bars without crazy javascript solutions.
It would be possible, (not necessarily convenient or easy) to migrate to a non-table based layout that would LOOK just about identical for most people, and solve the problems you mention.
Better yet, lets move to SVG--good browsers handle it, and poor ones (ie., IE) don't.
(Although, on checking, it seems that mozilla doesn't have perfect or complete support for some of the more advanced SVG stuff.)
There are a lot of advantages to moving to SVG, one of them being file size --it's TINY!!! Even compared to PNG. (At least, this has been my experience using SodiPodi, which uses SVG natively, but can export to PNG.)
It also means that the images will look better when the size is changed, and some of the old pictures used as icons could be scaled to fit user preferences and give much cleaner results.
Just a thought
Yeah, but their gonna need a new "visitors since 5/29/03" sign--that one's gonna hit its five digit limit real quick!
You obviously know nothing regarding categorical variables, which is what pie charts are used for (as are several of the more common statistical analyses). IF you are going to say X % of folks use linux,and y% use windows, you had better have a category for z % who use both, and w% who use neither (and probably a% for those who use apple).
A categorical variable is considered discrete--on or the other, NEVER both. The most common example of this is biological gender. You are male or female, NOT both. Although recently it has become possible to change which you are.
Well, I hate to put you out of job, but the problem is that you are using an NT4 server...
gah!
If NP is so cheap howsacome my electric bill is TWICE what it was when I lived in an area without NP? Now that I am dependent on Duke Power, my electric bill has doubled.
One person tried to claim it was due to increased humidity, which made it harder to cool my apartment--but I am NOT running the AC right now. So tell my--why is it so @#$@#%#@$ing expensive?
Personally, though, on a more serious note, I don't care where my power comes from, as long as it meets two criteria:
1--reliable. The fewer surges, spikes, poorly conditioned lines and whatnot, the better.
2--cheap. After #1 is met, I want to have decent prices.
I will grant that concerns such as the environment are important, but as long as we are at it, Coal processing is just as dirty as NP, and then there are the massive ill effects of coal mining on the environment (not to mention the miners). NP is a great way to cleanly produce electricity. Just got to figure out a way to deal with the waste material (I still think there has to be a practical, industrial use for the stuff. We just haven't created a demand for an oversupply of the material. Someone invents a way to convert plutonium (or whatever) to a safe end product, it will change the way we look at reactors.
There are merits to that, but there are two serious flaws with the idea of using nukes
1) it causes lots of waste, radiation, etc. This would be more than a minor inconvenience, especially considering the resulting fallout.
2) its illegal! I am pretty sure that there was an international treaty signed to ban nukes in space.
Other than, go for it--sounds like a great way to get rid of all of our spare nukes
the word is heuristics. Computers stink at heuristics in comparison to humans, which are so good at them that it takes considerably more time to think through an algorithm for us than it does for a computer.
Personally, I believe it has to do with 3 aspects of the human mind (put into computing terms).
1. Parrallel. the human brain processes in parallel.
2. Non-binary the human brain is NOT limited to binary language (in fact, I would guess that it uses a flexible base-n math system if you want to quantify it. The really nice thing is that n may or may not be finite--how does the molecule really communicate its message? There are so many methods that it boggles)
3. Non-linearity. The human mind can branch and skip whole sectors of input based on very little information. It can also do some wild tricks on how it handles associations.
Of course, computers do have some serious advantages--one is persistent memory. A computer can always tell if it knows something or not. Sometimes it isn't programmed well enough to do so, but if it were, it has the capacity. Humans don't. We frequently don't know our own capabilities, and that is a big setback.
(as a side note, next time you hear someone talk about how humans only use 10% of their brain power--LAUGH. Cognitive psychologists have effectively debunked that myth for quite some time)
having read some of the other replies to your comment, I still feel the need to comment.
.23 % of the time, which is pretty good--it's like saying all but 598,000 of the US (based on pop. 260,000,000) would do exactly as the subjects in Milgrams expirement.
Milgram was a great researcher, and his results were shocking, even if his methodology was a bit questionable ethically. There are limits to what any study can show, and just because the statistics show a clear direction, it does not mean that there are no exceptions. If, for example, your p-value is 0.0023 (a respectable value in any research), there are still some factors that must be considered. One is variability. I don't know how much variation there was in Milgram's results, but I promise you that there was SOME. The other factor is population size, which means that some of the time you will be wrong in your prediction (in this case, though, it would only be
Now, there are a lot of other factors involved that limit the generalizeability of his (and almost all other psychology) expirements, and I don't have time to iterate each of them.
I will say that I personally hold no one guilty for something that they did not personally do. That means that if my ancestors (heck, even parents) did something truly outrageous, that does not mean that I am party to those actions or condone them. It would only mean that I had been born in rather unfortunate circumstances. This is of course hypothetical. In reality, I was fortunate to have rather well educated parents, who also tried their best to be good and decent people.
Take a more extreme example. Let's say Uday Hussein had turned out different than he did, and was in reality a kind, gentle and thoughtful person who happened to be born to a cruel and sadistic father. Let us further imagine that somehow, against all odds, he made it to adulthood without being totally corrupted (yes, I am stretching it a bit).
Now let's suppose country x, tired of saddam's brutal and oppressive regime, invades, kills saddam, and tries to free the country. Should they execute all of saddam's household just because of his actions? NO! Rather, it would make more sense to judge each on an individual basis and only punish those who were guilty of the same offenses.
Now, I realize that there are a lot of politically charged ideas and situations in my example, but it is just an example.
No, I want to exonerate myself because I haven't ever done anything of the magnitude that the nazis did. I am not perfect, but generally, I try to be a good person. Can I say (most people can't) that I would NEVER have gone along with Hitler? NO, but I can say that I don't think I would, and that many people did not go along.
Sorry, your assertion does not logically flow. As for some of the expirements you mention, some are real, some are more mythical. Milgram and Tuskagee are real. Some of the assertions that I have heard regarding military/CIA mind control expirements are dubious at best, however (note: I am not saying that there were no unethical expirements, just that the exact nature of some of them is still unknown, and may never be known). That said, I do not condone them, and I am certainly not guilty for actions committed by the government of any country before, during or after my time, unless I happen to be in a powerful enough position to both know of and stop such actions.
No, you cannot state that I would've probably done the same, except in a statistical manner of speaking. Unfortunately, sometimes statistics are completely unable to predict individual behavior, since most tests are based on means or correlations, instead of actual individual scores (remember if n10 (or even if n20), be very careful of the studies findings).
enough said
Actually the saddest part of the whole experiment is that we don't know what happened to the kid. His mother, seeing the effect the research was having on him, removed him from the program, and his real name has never been known.
The original plan was to desensitize him so that the phobia would no longer affect him. However, that part never happened, so he left the research before the fears could be removed.
Subsequent research into phobias has been somewhat embarrassing at times, though for very different reasons: We now know that you cannot teach pigs to be afraid of snakes...apparently it is so instinctual for them to eat snakes, and they have such thick skin that snakes can't hurt them, that they are immune to the otherwise universal phobia (99% of all animals are innately afraid of snakes, and develop intense phobias after only 1 or 2 trials).
It just goes to show that truly expiremental research is the most informative, but is so often unethical when done on humans that we end up learning a lot about the behavior of rats and pigs, and how they react to certain drugs. Its a shame really.
You are mistaken in one thing though--we DO use the information the nazis gleaned from their experimentation. Sorry to bust your bubble, but they made vast advances in the medical fields with their very unethical methods that would take us much longer today.
DON'T get me wrong, though. I AM IN NO WAY ADVOCATING, CONDONING OR APPROVING OF, what the nazis did, their methods, or of utilizing such procedures. It is one of the most dispicable acts in the history of mankind. Nevertheless, it is a fact that society uses the information they obtained through these methods.
This is not an uncommon situation. In psychology there are a LOT of classic expirements that would not be performed now due to ethical concerns. That in NO WAY limits the usefulness of that information or the fact that is has been used as the basis for a lot of theoretical framework. An example would be the researcher at John Hopkins Medical Center who conditioned a young child to be very phobic of anything that was white and fluffy. Such experiments are not ethical, but much of what we know about phobias and treating them is a result of his research.
Flame me if you wish, but we DO use information gathered in an unethical manner frequently--as long as it is regarded as accurate, which the data gathered by the nazis is. They were, if nothing else good can be said, very methodical in their research.
Once again, I DO NOT CONDONE WHAT THEY DID.
which ie is not...
besides, does moz implement all of css2?
yeah, cause I hate having to read a lot of docs to figure out how to use something...
guess i'll just have to wonder what windows is all about....
I have a question, tho many probably know the answer. As a disclaimer, I AM NOT A CYCLIST!! (ianac?).
that said, wouldn't be possible to mount the derailleur ABOVE the gears so that it is not so prone to snag on rocks, etc? I would think that would help a lot.
Let me know.
Thanks. I appreciate this type of response--pointing at solid alternatives that I haven't fully considered, instead of flaming me for being some type of luz3r.
I am still curious about why gentoo doesn't live up to it's social contract, though.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The point of gentoo is not to "LEARN LINUX INSIDE AND OUT"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once again, this time from the social contract located at: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml
I quote:
"Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools. When a tool is doing its job perfectly, you might not even be very aware of its presence, because it does not interfere and make its presence known, nor does it force you to interact with it when you don't want it to. The tool serves the user rather than the user serving the tool."
"The future goal of Gentoo is to continue to strive to create near-ideal tools. Tools that can accomodate the needs of many different users (all with divergent goals) with ease are extremely powerful. Don't you love it when you find a tool that does exactly what you want to do? Doesn't it feel great? Our mission is to give that sensation to as many people as possible."
Am I wrong?? Or is this document not truly the social contract? Maybe I am misinterpreting a publically available document that purports to describe the purpose of a publically available distro of an open (public) source program.
I want gentoo because of the reported wonders that are emerge. I want linux because it is better, more stable, and less restrictive than Windows. I would get a Mac if I had the cash, but I still want linux, because of certain programs that are available under linux that I happen to like!!
Is that really too much to ask? If I had programming skills I would create the GUI installer for gentoo myself. But I don't, and likely never will, because I choose to dedicate my life to something else (if you want to know what, read some of my postings, its in there).
Your attitude is what annoys me about linux more than anything else. Not an attitude of wanting to help others, but an attitude of "get lost." It seems to me that this attitude is in direct contrast to the stated goals of gentoo.
have a nice day.
Possibly you are, but eventually those faking their resumes do one of two things: fail at the job, OR learn what they claimed to know.
For me, if you claim to know something, then learn it fast enough to perform adequately, who cares if you didn't know the skill initially.
Claiming certain experience is much more seditious and stupid--generally experience can be verified.
I have to agree with you on this one. The grandparent is correct that gentoo docs seem very explicit, but they are not as good as he seems to think. As a noob to gentoo, I could NOT get it to work on reasonably common hardware (I don't have anything even remotely exotic in terms of hardware).
... The future goal of Gentoo is to continue to strive to create near-ideal tools. Tools that can accomodate the needs of many different users (all with divergent goals) with ease are extremely powerful. Don't you love it when you find a tool that does exactly what you want to do? Doesn't it feel great? Our mission is to give that sensation to as many people as possible."
Gentoo's lack of decent documentation for post install configuration is also annoying. I quote:
"Configuring a USB Mouse
A USB mouse is your friend on a high resolution screen. The kernel takes care of the scaling so you don't have to move your mouse five times across the pad to make it across the screen.
The first thing that has to be done is the installation of the kernel modules. The modules that will be needed for a USB mouse to work are usbmouse, mousedev, hid, usbcore, usb-uhci, and input. After the necessary kernel configuration is done, insmod the modules."
This might be useful to someone who has a fair bit of experience, but as a novice linux user, one of the reasons I want to use Gentoo is all the great things I have heard about emerge, which would make using the system much less time consuming. I personally want that, but can't seem to have it because the docs are not explicit on how to do the necessary kernel configuration, "insmod" the modules, or even how to obtain the modules (yes, I tried to emerge them, but apparently that isn't what they want you to do).
Let me lift another quote from their website:
"The most fundamental issue is designing a technology that allows us and others to do what they want to do, without restriction.
If the mission of gentoo is to give as many people as possible "that sensation", then does it not logically follow that they would want to give them a choice to use a well developed ("near ideaL") tool to install gentoo? The unfortunate thing is that most will have differing expectations of a "near ideal" tool. For me, and apparently many others, the "near ideal" tool for installing gentoo would include a GUI installer that results in a system configured for use on FIRST reboot. It would also allow the option to compile packages via this method or to use their GRP packages for a speedy install on older hardware.
I for one, though not a programmer, would be willing to help design the interface and make it more friendly to noobs. However, I lack the ability to do everything necessary for such a project (such as program anything very useful in C, or a similar language--and I doubt that my skills with PHP will be much help either...)
Debian, to get back on topic, takes a slightly different philosophy to the table, and that's fine. Debian, as I understand it, is all about stability. That's fine. But if a distro claims it wants to provide their tools as many people as possible, then they should do what they can to achieve that goal--not feel smug because they installed it and I can't, and happy because that keeps noobs off the forums!!!
As a side note: I don't know the actual developers of Gentoo, and if the "gentoo social contract" is a true indication of their actual attitudes, then I respect that. It is an admirable document with many wonderful ideas. I personally feel frustrated because I don't feel like those ideals and goals are being met. If you are gentoo developer and are reading this: I applaud your work, and hope to be able to benefit from it. I am afraid, however, that until the installation is somewhat more suited for my needs, that I will be out of luck.
actually the number of bogus resumes is much lower--try around only 25%. Which is plenty high enough to give most researchers and HR folks fits.
I agree with the grandparent--the gentoo install is not a) for the faint of heart, b) for noobs. I have now tried at least 5 times to install gentoo, without success--there are a massive number of scenarios that the installation instructions fail to address, and some of them are pertinent to what a newcomer would need.
Oh yeah, I am also a little miffed about the lack of a GUI installer as well. Gentoo, according to their site, is supposed to be about choice. There is a choice I want, that isn't there--a GUI installer. I think GRP is a step in the right direction for those of use who are interested in ease of use over custom kernel and compile.
I think you are forgetting what most people forget. Since the US has a relatively short maximum presidency, the actions of one president are very frequently reversed by another. Even if they are the same political party.
The idea of installing and supporting dictators is obviously a bad one. But if at some future point someone gets a clue (after being smacked with a clue stick in the form of 9/11), you can hardly blame them for wanting to undo previous mistakes.
I can see where it could be seen as hypocritical, but really, if we are cleaning up past mistakes, can't it be seen as owning up to past stupidity and therefore a good thing?
The time when it is really hypocrisy is if the SAME president simultaneously removes a dictator while installing another (either there or somewhere else). If I thought GW was doing that (which I don't), then I would be first in line to toss him out of office.
I do agree with your last sentence--yes we should support true democracy, and not just when it is convenient. Unfortunately, how do you tell the difference between a president who is looking ahead, and a president who is working for the NOW, when both will be out of office within 8 years (maximum).
In so many ways, the eight year maximum is a wonderful thing. The one downside is that it tends to encourage short-sighted, quick benefit programs that make one's own political party look good within about a year. The electoral college actually exacerbates this problem, as it makes presidents more likely to cater to those within their party.
Personally, I think that Presidential elections should be party-nuetral (like some mayorial elections), and anyone with more than x signatures would be allowed to run (say 5,000 or 10,000). This would allow for a much more diverse and interesting election, as well as help clean up some of the politics.
For those who boohoo this idea, remember what happened recently in CA--Arnold got more than enough votes to be considered a clear winner. Yes there were problems with that, but it was obvious that a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have considered running for governor did because entry to the election race was much easier than normal.
I personally think entry to the presidential elections should be easier, barring only a criminal record other than minor traffic violations (got theft? no election for you! got DUI? no election for you!).
Maybe I'm just a little to optimistic though.
however, by the same token, if you have open source software, it is not necessary to adhere to the standards, as anyone can replicate your file formats and methods.
The thing about this is that having all three makes everyone's life easier--except that of those people who make money off of being closed, which is what M$ does.
What M$ knows, but doesn't admit, is that they could make money off an open source windows. It isn't likely that they would make as MUCH money, but that is true of all commodity items (take televisions, for example: they are commodity, pretty much anyone can make one, but yet plenty of companies make money off of manufacturing and selling them).
Commodity markets are tougher to become ultra-rich in, but they do drive innovation and "new" features. If we got rid of the DMCA, and made it so that all programs were open source, only those companies with the best products would make very much money. There would still be a lot of other companies though, specializing in niche markets, and selling uber-customized versions of some OSS.
I spefically stated that not all businesses and Republicans want to shaft workers. Anyone who is up on modern business strategy would have to be an absolute IDIOT to think like that.
Of course, I am something of an anomaly--I am currently studying for my master's degree in Industrial Psychology. This field, for those who aren't familiar with it, is concerned with improving working conditions on the premise that this will help companies save money. This field would, by your standards, be entirely populated with Democrats, but it is not, and I am certainly not a Democrat.
I cannot agree that democrats what to do the RIGHT thing anymore than do republicans. That is an image designed to make people like them for the express purpose of gaining power. If you think that democrats would EVER vote less power based on the idea that it is the right thing, you are sadly mistaken. As far as it goes, neither would republicans.
I find it amusing, personally that you talk about lack of military service when referring to republicans, and being willing to send people to war. Clinton was extremely notorious for skipping war service, but had no problems with sending people to die in Kosovo.
Sorry, I can't buy that line either.
As for personal responsibility, yes it is a strange line, but when you think about capitalism, and entrepenurialism, it is all about responsibility and making the most of yourself.
Democrats, OTOH, seem to want to make society dependent on saftey nets, social programs, and whatnot--all of which make the majority (populace at large) of the country dependent on the minority (the government). While I am at it, yes I know the feeling of being a minority--the ONLY person of a controversial religion in my grade school, the ONLY male in a LOT of psychology courses. It is very hard to sit through a class and listen to women bash men! Just as it would be hard for them to listen to men bash women!
Lastly, I stated clearly that I do have issues with both parties, and I meant it. But don't tout the standard democrat lines without knowing that both parties have flaws.
And yes, I still prefer the republicans, despite your excellent treatise on why they are so evil.