The "Stop voting" part is not exactly a program. Your stoping voting changes (or could possibly change, if enough people stopped voting) exactly what for the guys in Guantanamo Bay?
I'm glad you are content with that: I love to see happy people.
I, on the other hand, do not think the licencing terms are good anbough for me to use those formats in my software, nor, actually, to actually store any content I produce. I have considered the options, and have chosen. If that makes me a zealot, well, fine.
Argh. Wrong button... I left out the point of my post: so here it goes:
Please, O please: if you want to argue against evolution and for your favorite theory, by all means do so, but please, O please do not keep repeating this very sad mantra about evolution being "just a theory", because it not only detracts from the seriousness of your argument, makes you look ignorant about the matter under discussion, but, worse of all!, is already boring
Evolution is nothing but a theory. Ask any REAL biologist (like those with Ph.D.'s or those who work in colleges), and they will admit evolution is a theory. It is not fact. It is not a scientific law.
See, science does not produce anything but theories. Saying that evolution is just a theory does not make sense, because it cannot be anything else. It cannot be a fact because facts are of a completely different nature. It cannot be a scientific law because there are no such things (phrases like "the law of universal gravitation" are simply traditional ways of referring to the newtonian theory of gravitation).
I find it quite bizarre that people who rabidly criticize the US for overthrowing a dictator fail to recognize that the bullshit juntas around the world have absolutely no legitimacy to represent their people or claim the protection of sovereignty, including Saddam.
Those are two different things.
You are correct in saying that most of those juntas have absolutely no legitimacy. That is quite orthogonal to the fact that the US has absolutely no legitimacy in overthrowing dictators.
One can find those juntas abject and at the same time reject the notion of letting the US do regime changing as they see fit, without incurring in no bizarre contradiction whatsoever.
I'd simply suggest keeping away from automated grading, as it is a very bad way of grading.
I have taught math and CS for quite a few years, and I have never ever given an exercise in an examination for which the point was the final result. Most of the time, I do not even look at the final result. Of course, it is a lot more work to actually read what students write, how they get to the results they get, how they argue if they argue, &c, but that is what I am teaching them to do, so that is what I am grading.
You are right: problems and inconveniences can always be solved or worked-around.
What is being discussed, though, is the fact that there is absolutely no need for those problems and inconveniences to be there in the first place. There are no technological impediments which force anyone to introduce those problems and inconveniences. In fact, from what I have read, no useful capability was gained by excluding non-IE6 browsers, and it appears that simply forging a UserAgent string was enough to get access to the site. Evidence clearly points to incompetence and carelessness as the sole explanation.
No amount of work-arounds will change this simple facts.
Requiring IE implies that you can only accept hardware donations which have the correct version of Windows and IE installed, and of course, you have to make sure that the licence is transferred with the donation and what not. Have you ever tried to set up a Windows box? Have you ever tried to boot from a Knoppix CD? Which one takes longer? WHich one requires more work and expertise in order to avoid being completely owned after the first 7 minutes online?...
In the best academic tradition, I'll leave it as an easy exercise for you to come up with a list of 5 more things that result from requiring IE6 which are completely unnecessary.
Apart from these practicalities, there is always the principle, which, one could argue, can be left for consideration till after things have calmed down... Is it correct that a government agency picks a proprietary piece of software as a requirement for citizens to interact with it, when the knowledge and means needed in order to avoid imposing such a requirement are easily available?
It is quite apparent that this web page was *not* put up for this particular natural disaster. Indeed, I'd find it rather disturbing if an organization with the purpose of FEMA had had to quickly put up a web site for this.
It is also apparent that the web page wants a specific version of IE, so it seems that the Mac version will not do. It is quite clear to anyone who creates web sites and knows the appropriate standards that building a web site which requires a specific browser is actually *more* work than doing otherwise.
Hmm. I really don't feel like going on. I guess that if you are interested in finding out why you are wrong, you'll read up a bit on the matter, and if you are not, well, there is ni point in my writing anything else...
It is quite true that hospitals, housing plans, and fossil fuels were not there before: they have been acquired. But basic human rights like the right to not be killed at the whim of someone else, freedom of speech, freedom from slavery and others were not there before either: they have been acquired through a process not very different from them one that got us hospitals. The vote for women, Rosa Parks's right to sit on a bus whereever she wanted, weekends, 8 hour work days, public education, being payed for one's work, payed vacations, basic health care, the right not to be burned, the right to a fair trial, and many more I am sure you can name, are things that were not there before they were there.
As you say, they are creations of society, as mostly everything is.
I have to admire your faith in humanity if you think that such feats of creativity on society's part would endure time if this just depended on market systems...
I doubt you care, but my sighing was caused by the disheartening feeling of not being able to compactly and at the same time coherently conveying a world view. On my part.
I sigh at the feeling I feel that actually going to the motions of explaining what I think is useless. It's extremely discouraging: it's discouraging for someone who very much believes in the power of communication to find himself daunted with the task of communicating.
No, but it is what prevents our economy from looking like Cuba (no food is available), Russia (no heating fuel is available) or Canada (9 months of waiting for a mammogram).
Well, you might want to consider, too, the effects of not having a huge overpowerful country sitting beside you and being as annoying as it can because it does not like the way you at some point decided you wanted to be organized. You could really look into history to see where did the heating fuel actually go in Russia, and you could ask the average Canadian how much the idea of going under the auspices of the USian health system looks to him.
Hmm. Or you could simply look out of the little box you are in...
The 'market' has a well-known reputation for buying lots of things and ideas which were patently negative for it. Pass me some freedom fries, will you?
I actually think that everyone has the right to lie, anonymously or not, about anything. I happen to think that one should not lie---but this is a rather different thing.
Now, these `real consequences' you mention: I think we all have a duty to make as sure as we can that those real consequences do not befall on anyone because of lies.
Slashdot Mirror
The "Stop voting" part is not exactly a program. Your stoping voting changes (or could possibly change, if enough people stopped voting) exactly what for the guys in Guantanamo Bay?
Did Wittgenstein write that? I'd love a reference, if you have it ;-) Quite similar to Sartre's ``l'enfer, c'est les Autres'' in Huis Clos.
Do you seriously think that they have not thought about this?
I'm glad you are content with that: I love to see happy people.
I, on the other hand, do not think the licencing terms are good anbough for me to use those formats in my software, nor, actually, to actually store any content I produce. I have considered the options, and have chosen. If that makes me a zealot, well, fine.
It is not such a hard concept to grasp: The fact that the format is visible does not mean that it is open...
Argh. Wrong button... I left out the point of my post: so here it goes:
Please, O please: if you want to argue against evolution and for your favorite theory, by all means do so, but please, O please do not keep repeating this very sad mantra about evolution being "just a theory", because it not only detracts from the seriousness of your argument, makes you look ignorant about the matter under discussion, but, worse of all!, is already boring
Sigh.
See, science does not produce anything but theories. Saying that evolution is just a theory does not make sense, because it cannot be anything else. It cannot be a fact because facts are of a completely different nature. It cannot be a scientific law because there are no such things (phrases like "the law of universal gravitation" are simply traditional ways of referring to the newtonian theory of gravitation).
Those are two different things.
You are correct in saying that most of those juntas have absolutely no legitimacy. That is quite orthogonal to the fact that the US has absolutely no legitimacy in overthrowing dictators.
One can find those juntas abject and at the same time reject the notion of letting the US do regime changing as they see fit, without incurring in no bizarre contradiction whatsoever.
I'd simply suggest keeping away from automated grading, as it is a very bad way of grading.
I have taught math and CS for quite a few years, and I have never ever given an exercise in an examination for which the point was the final result. Most of the time, I do not even look at the final result. Of course, it is a lot more work to actually read what students write, how they get to the results they get, how they argue if they argue, &c, but that is what I am teaching them to do, so that is what I am grading.
You are right: problems and inconveniences can always be solved or worked-around.
What is being discussed, though, is the fact that there is absolutely no need for those problems and inconveniences to be there in the first place. There are no technological impediments which force anyone to introduce those problems and inconveniences. In fact, from what I have read, no useful capability was gained by excluding non-IE6 browsers, and it appears that simply forging a UserAgent string was enough to get access to the site. Evidence clearly points to incompetence and carelessness as the sole explanation.
No amount of work-arounds will change this simple facts.
I certainly don't think the term was used here ironically, and I most certainly don't think Bush's speech writers have a sense or irony...
Use your imagination...
Requiring IE implies that you can only accept hardware donations which have the correct version of Windows and IE installed, and of course, you have to make sure that the licence is transferred with the donation and what not. Have you ever tried to set up a Windows box? Have you ever tried to boot from a Knoppix CD? Which one takes longer? WHich one requires more work and expertise in order to avoid being completely owned after the first 7 minutes online?...
In the best academic tradition, I'll leave it as an easy exercise for you to come up with a list of 5 more things that result from requiring IE6 which are completely unnecessary.
Apart from these practicalities, there is always the principle, which, one could argue, can be left for consideration till after things have calmed down... Is it correct that a government agency picks a proprietary piece of software as a requirement for citizens to interact with it, when the knowledge and means needed in order to avoid imposing such a requirement are easily available?
Hmm. Why stop at requiring a particular language for citizenship?
It is quite apparent that this web page was *not* put up for this particular natural disaster. Indeed, I'd find it rather disturbing if an organization with the purpose of FEMA had had to quickly put up a web site for this.
It is also apparent that the web page wants a specific version of IE, so it seems that the Mac version will not do. It is quite clear to anyone who creates web sites and knows the appropriate standards that building a web site which requires a specific browser is actually *more* work than doing otherwise.
Hmm. I really don't feel like going on. I guess that if you are interested in finding out why you are wrong, you'll read up a bit on the matter, and if you are not, well, there is ni point in my writing anything else...
Enjoy.
Hmm. He compensates with style? Style?!
See, I live in a free country, Argentina, and he is most definitely *not* my leader.
Be sure to write to them: I am quite sure they have not figured that out...
It is quite true that hospitals, housing plans, and fossil fuels were not there before: they have been acquired. But basic human rights like the right to not be killed at the whim of someone else, freedom of speech, freedom from slavery and others were not there before either: they have been acquired through a process not very different from them one that got us hospitals. The vote for women, Rosa Parks's right to sit on a bus whereever she wanted, weekends, 8 hour work days, public education, being payed for one's work, payed vacations, basic health care, the right not to be burned, the right to a fair trial, and many more I am sure you can name, are things that were not there before they were there.
As you say, they are creations of society, as mostly everything is.
I have to admire your faith in humanity if you think that such feats of creativity on society's part would endure time if this just depended on market systems...
Thanks for the (mild) insult.
I doubt you care, but my sighing was caused by the disheartening feeling of not being able to compactly and at the same time coherently conveying a world view. On my part.
I sigh at the feeling I feel that actually going to the motions of explaining what I think is useless. It's extremely discouraging: it's discouraging for someone who very much believes in the power of communication to find himself daunted with the task of communicating.
Sigh
Well, you might want to consider, too, the effects of not having a huge overpowerful country sitting beside you and being as annoying as it can because it does not like the way you at some point decided you wanted to be organized. You could really look into history to see where did the heating fuel actually go in Russia, and you could ask the average Canadian how much the idea of going under the auspices of the USian health system looks to him.
Hmm. Or you could simply look out of the little box you are in...
You may have missed this, but: people -are- working in order to make them work for end users.
The 'market' has a well-known reputation for buying lots of things and ideas which were patently negative for it. Pass me some freedom fries, will you?
I actually think that everyone has the right to lie, anonymously or not, about anything. I happen to think that one should not lie---but this is a rather different thing.
Now, these `real consequences' you mention: I think we all have a duty to make as sure as we can that those real consequences do not befall on anyone because of lies.
Note I have not said all this is easy!
Dude, calm down.
That's simply UTF-8 being interpreted as ISO-8859-1.