Very many people are effectively required to cap their upload. I'm on a cable connection where, if I don't cap my upload at 10kbps, it drops my download to staying near 6kbps when it hits 16kbps down (I stop it at ten so everything doesn't die while I use the other portions of the internet, such as the web).
And, no, it doesn't do anything to your download speed. Yeah, I usually only average 30kbps down, but I also commonly get around 150kbps down, which leaves me with better-than-realtime download of compressed video.
But that's not what the parent quote was about. The claim wasn't that you shouldn't restrict children, it was that parents shouldn't enlist the aid of the government to do so. The government clearly cannot know what is absolutely best, so it should leave the matter in the hands of parents.
Similar benefits? What are you talking about? The article is about visualization!
Is there some reason you feel the need to make off-topic evangelizations left and right? Even more importantly, who the hell modded this informative instead of off-topic? Clearly, this doesn't relate to an article about doing visualizations of supercomputer output.
All European: http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri= tcm:29-1179 97-16&type=News (In 2003, Spain=50%, Germany=64%, Italy=106%, France=63%, UK=39%)
Canadian Debt Clock: http://www.ndir.com/SI/education/debt.shtm l (I'm not checking the math on it, but I already know Canada has a debt problem, there are many articles on it, but none seemed to state the exact percent)
That also doesn't catch one of the tricky little things: How many Linux distros come with GAIM? Pretty much all of them. There's a lot of downloads, right off the bat.
Yep, the UK has a much better debt situation. Have you recently looked at Germany (64% of GDP), France (68%), Italy (106%), Spain (62%), Japan (154%), or Canada (77%)? In case you were wondering, those are most the rest of the G8. That leaves Russia (34%) and the UK (33%) as the only two not in the same boat as the US (and Russia has other problems; they're no great example of what to do).
"This place looks like any other third-world banana republic, except we have a new dictator every few years."
Not only is that not true in its comparison, that is an insult to those who have had to overcome worse troubles in the past.
Look at the Sedition Act of 1918 which disallowed "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the US government. Look into the events surrounding WWII and internment camps against Japanese Americans. Take a look at McCarthyism in all its horrible glory.
We've done worse and come out stronger on the other side. We can come through this just fine as well, so long as we try.
Except that smart greenies don't want oil to run out and realize that coal won't run out. These plants they compete with are mostly coal, and coal is not anywhere near to being in short supply. But oil? Damn, man, what are you gonna replace plastic with?
You're bitching about wind being not green enough when the other one they had was hydro? Hydro-electric power is really bad for the environment due to the way dams fuck up the eco-systems around rivers. By contrast, wind turbines cause no more damage to migratory birds than any other large building (which is really to say that they do a decent amount of damage).
Of course, if people want a really green source they should look to either nuclear or solar that isn't provided by solar panels (last I checked, the creation of solar panels was not-so-good).
Did they just say that someone can request a takedown for copyright material of they don't own?
As far as I know, it is technically impossible for anyone but the copyright holder to know if the copyright is being violated. Why? Copyrights don't have to be enforced. Most people that don't care too much about their specific copyrights just don't bother to enforce them unless there is blatant plagiarism.
Further, how would anyone but the copyright owner know if some agreement had already been made?
Please tell me I am just incredibly misinterpreting it (and, yes, I did RTFA) and they aren't just being mind-bogglingly stupid.
You ask the filesystem what's in a folder and it tells you
Yes, that's what happens, on an arcitectual level, but the average user isn't on that level.
So, let's go back to the statement we are arguing about:
In the classic Finder, there is no abstraction between the actual file system and the view of the file system presented on screen.
Let me get this straight: The Finder shows the user something differently from what happens at the file-system level, so it's not an abstraction of the file system? I think you might have a misunderstanding of what an abstraction is, or you just don't care that the quote was wrong in all its fundamentals.
he's only saying that a folder and its window goes together with a one-to-one relationship.
Yes. When do they not? In Explorer, when do folders open not have a one-to-one relationship? I open a folder, it has a window (1-1). I navigate into a lower folder, and it stays at one window with one folder (1-1). I close the window (0-0). Seemed to match up.
What he is talking about is that each folder has its own unique window, even when closed. What he fails to do is present that this has any benefit. What he claimed as a benefit was a one-to-one mapping, which occurs in all other systems as well. If this quote which you pointed out specifically can't successfully make any arguments, I can only assume the rest of the piece is similarly bad.
And yet it's the argument propulsed by many great interface engineers, including Bruce Tognazzini who pretty much formed the old Mac user interface.
I'll just assume you meant proposed, then also assume that you meant that Bruce Tognazzini is a strong backer of the spatial navigator interface, not the precise quote you tossed down.
Now, maybe you should actually read what I said. I didn't say the spatial navigator was bad. I said that quote was nonsense. I said the argument was "one of the most singularly bad arguments for spatial browsing that has ever been presented". There are many good arguments. I've even made some of them before. That argument was not one of the good arguments.
Oh, and for your information, I don't mind spatial browsing. I prefer non-spatial for my personal usage for a lot of reasons that I can easily explain if you want me to, but I won't in this post as it would waste space.
If they mention multiple browsers that support standards (Konqueror, Opera, FireFox, Mozilla) they would be just an advocacy group seeking to improve the web in general.
In the classic Finder, there is no abstraction between the actual file system and the view of the file system presented on screen. A folder is either open or closed. If it is open, it is represented on screen in its own window. The size, position, and viewing options for an open folder's window are always remembered, and are unrelated to the size, position, and viewing options of parent, sibling, or child folders. There is a clear, cohesive paradigm at work. An open folder is a window; a window is an open folder.
What nonsense. No abstraction between the file system and the view of the file system because folders are displayed as opened or closed? Since when does the file system open or close folders? You ask the filesystem what's in a folder and it tells you. That's all.
And the 'cohesive paradigm'? Oh, so a browser which follows a 100% tree structure, where going up goes up a level, opening a folder changes the view, and so on is not cohesive or clear? Most people find it plenty clear.
And what is this, "An open folder is a window; a window is an open folder"? So, all windows are folders? Tell that to all the other programs on the system! You might say that they aren't the Finder, but the windows look just about identical, so no one cares. It's the same with any other browser, anyway: A window of a folder is an opened folder.
That was one of the most singularly bad arguments for spatial browsing that has ever been presented. Maybe the rest of there comments are of at least some value, but what you quoted has quite inspired me to assume they are incompetent and not waste my time reading them.
Considering that republicans have always been supporting a stronger nuclear program, claiming they do nothing is just not fair. Switching to nuclear would be the single largest step the US could take, yet the democrats block it.
Usually, democrats are on-the-ball with the whole progress thing (compared to republicans), but that's one that they dropped.
I must point out that, in all those cases, the concensus claimed that the status quo was correct. As it is well demonstrated that people have a tendency to endorse the status quo, it seems likely that this was the primary reason for these situations.
However, the global warming situation is not identical. The concept is relatively new, is not dealt with as a portion of the status quo in many areas, and is denied by many of the reactionary organizations. The concensus is for change, unlike in the cases brought forward.
As an equally likely cause for the past flaws is demonstrable, doubting this concensus on account of those concensuses is not entirely adviseable.
Obviously, the solution is to make better pop-up ads! If people hate them so vigorously that they will write complex programs to eradicate them, then pop-up ads are clearly the way to go!
The fact that the users use ad-blocking tools and that the users are tech-savvy are really the same issue, not different ones.
(And, aside from that, they can stop most all of the ad-blocking problems by just having the website proxy all advertisement images on it, so they really shouldn't bitch about something with a fairly simple technological solution.)
Slashdot Mirror
While it was never official, all of the Project Gutenberg books are shared out by some people on DC networks.
Very many people are effectively required to cap their upload. I'm on a cable connection where, if I don't cap my upload at 10kbps, it drops my download to staying near 6kbps when it hits 16kbps down (I stop it at ten so everything doesn't die while I use the other portions of the internet, such as the web).
And, no, it doesn't do anything to your download speed. Yeah, I usually only average 30kbps down, but I also commonly get around 150kbps down, which leaves me with better-than-realtime download of compressed video.
But that's not what the parent quote was about. The claim wasn't that you shouldn't restrict children, it was that parents shouldn't enlist the aid of the government to do so. The government clearly cannot know what is absolutely best, so it should leave the matter in the hands of parents.
Le Guin is the author of the books.
Similar benefits? What are you talking about? The article is about visualization!
Is there some reason you feel the need to make off-topic evangelizations left and right? Even more importantly, who the hell modded this informative instead of off-topic? Clearly, this doesn't relate to an article about doing visualizations of supercomputer output.
I just used the CIA factbook for those. It's not perfect accuracy, but it's usually fairly good.
m i_m2633/is _6_14/ai_68145870
= tcm:29-1179 97-16&type=News
m l
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
If you doubt that...
Japan:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/
All European:
http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri
(In 2003, Spain=50%, Germany=64%, Italy=106%, France=63%, UK=39%)
Canadian Debt Clock:
http://www.ndir.com/SI/education/debt.sht
(I'm not checking the math on it, but I already know Canada has a debt problem, there are many articles on it, but none seemed to state the exact percent)
Sorry, no info handy on Russia.
That also doesn't catch one of the tricky little things: How many Linux distros come with GAIM? Pretty much all of them. There's a lot of downloads, right off the bat.
Yep, the UK has a much better debt situation. Have you recently looked at Germany (64% of GDP), France (68%), Italy (106%), Spain (62%), Japan (154%), or Canada (77%)? In case you were wondering, those are most the rest of the G8. That leaves Russia (34%) and the UK (33%) as the only two not in the same boat as the US (and Russia has other problems; they're no great example of what to do).
"This place looks like any other third-world banana republic, except we have a new dictator every few years."
Not only is that not true in its comparison, that is an insult to those who have had to overcome worse troubles in the past.
Look at the Sedition Act of 1918 which disallowed "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the US government. Look into the events surrounding WWII and internment camps against Japanese Americans. Take a look at McCarthyism in all its horrible glory.
We've done worse and come out stronger on the other side. We can come through this just fine as well, so long as we try.
People are cheaper than autonomous vehicles.
What you're imagining is that they have to pay for cleanup.
Except that smart greenies don't want oil to run out and realize that coal won't run out. These plants they compete with are mostly coal, and coal is not anywhere near to being in short supply. But oil? Damn, man, what are you gonna replace plastic with?
You're bitching about wind being not green enough when the other one they had was hydro? Hydro-electric power is really bad for the environment due to the way dams fuck up the eco-systems around rivers. By contrast, wind turbines cause no more damage to migratory birds than any other large building (which is really to say that they do a decent amount of damage).
Of course, if people want a really green source they should look to either nuclear or solar that isn't provided by solar panels (last I checked, the creation of solar panels was not-so-good).
Did they just say that someone can request a takedown for copyright material of they don't own?
As far as I know, it is technically impossible for anyone but the copyright holder to know if the copyright is being violated. Why? Copyrights don't have to be enforced. Most people that don't care too much about their specific copyrights just don't bother to enforce them unless there is blatant plagiarism.
Further, how would anyone but the copyright owner know if some agreement had already been made?
Please tell me I am just incredibly misinterpreting it (and, yes, I did RTFA) and they aren't just being mind-bogglingly stupid.
What he is talking about is that each folder has its own unique window, even when closed. What he fails to do is present that this has any benefit. What he claimed as a benefit was a one-to-one mapping, which occurs in all other systems as well. If this quote which you pointed out specifically can't successfully make any arguments, I can only assume the rest of the piece is similarly bad. I'll just assume you meant proposed, then also assume that you meant that Bruce Tognazzini is a strong backer of the spatial navigator interface, not the precise quote you tossed down.
Now, maybe you should actually read what I said. I didn't say the spatial navigator was bad. I said that quote was nonsense. I said the argument was "one of the most singularly bad arguments for spatial browsing that has ever been presented". There are many good arguments. I've even made some of them before. That argument was not one of the good arguments.
Oh, and for your information, I don't mind spatial browsing. I prefer non-spatial for my personal usage for a lot of reasons that I can easily explain if you want me to, but I won't in this post as it would waste space.
If they mention multiple browsers that support standards (Konqueror, Opera, FireFox, Mozilla) they would be just an advocacy group seeking to improve the web in general.
And the 'cohesive paradigm'? Oh, so a browser which follows a 100% tree structure, where going up goes up a level, opening a folder changes the view, and so on is not cohesive or clear? Most people find it plenty clear.
And what is this, "An open folder is a window; a window is an open folder"? So, all windows are folders? Tell that to all the other programs on the system! You might say that they aren't the Finder, but the windows look just about identical, so no one cares. It's the same with any other browser, anyway: A window of a folder is an opened folder.
That was one of the most singularly bad arguments for spatial browsing that has ever been presented. Maybe the rest of there comments are of at least some value, but what you quoted has quite inspired me to assume they are incompetent and not waste my time reading them.
Wow, I suspect you just hit that one on the head. MS is one of the few tech companies that is a bigger fish than IBM, and IBM doesn't like that.
That would be particularly interesting. In particular, IBM might start running out some low-end Macs to compete with PCs.
I don't at all expect that to happen, but it would be interesting.
Considering that republicans have always been supporting a stronger nuclear program, claiming they do nothing is just not fair. Switching to nuclear would be the single largest step the US could take, yet the democrats block it.
Usually, democrats are on-the-ball with the whole progress thing (compared to republicans), but that's one that they dropped.
I must point out that, in all those cases, the concensus claimed that the status quo was correct. As it is well demonstrated that people have a tendency to endorse the status quo, it seems likely that this was the primary reason for these situations.
However, the global warming situation is not identical. The concept is relatively new, is not dealt with as a portion of the status quo in many areas, and is denied by many of the reactionary organizations. The concensus is for change, unlike in the cases brought forward.
As an equally likely cause for the past flaws is demonstrable, doubting this concensus on account of those concensuses is not entirely adviseable.
Obviously, the solution is to make better pop-up ads! If people hate them so vigorously that they will write complex programs to eradicate them, then pop-up ads are clearly the way to go!
Jame's Law of Good and Evil:
If you believe an evil is necessary, you are an idiot.
The fact that the users use ad-blocking tools and that the users are tech-savvy are really the same issue, not different ones.
(And, aside from that, they can stop most all of the ad-blocking problems by just having the website proxy all advertisement images on it, so they really shouldn't bitch about something with a fairly simple technological solution.)
"Does the GIMP even use ICC profiles?"
Yes.