If they're images, then you should use TIFF (or perhaps PNG). However, it doesn't make sense for them to be "multi-page." If they're documents, then PDF is appropriate.
I would suggest that your client doesn't know WTF they want.
And it's not because it's nerdy (as the summary opines). It's simply because its about maintenance of poorly-designed shit. You might as well call it glorified janitorial work.
In contrast, creating new stuff, as actual programmers and engineers do -- that's interesting!
I really want to like the OpenMoko stuff, but I can't yet because of things like this:
At the moment, almost no 'end-user' applications are present and working in a usable state. It is possible to make and receive calls in some software revisions, this frequently breaks though.
I'm sorry, but there's really no use talking about a "phone" that can't even reliably make phone calls yet!
ATI are planning to drop support for accelerated OpenGL on Windows as of Vista. Which makes you wonder how well future ATI hardware will support OpenGL
If ATI is planning on dropping support for OpenGL, then it must be planning on dropping support for Macs and non-Xbox game consoles, too.
Or you could buy a printer that supports PostScript.
Does such a thing exist for less than, say, $250?
I know that last time I looked, I had to give up Postscript to get a (network, laser) printer in my price range. I ended up with Brother HL-2070N, which is okay except that it still seems to require a driver on each client even when printing over the network, and it supports PCL instead of Postscript.
I am not. I'm arguing for the goal espoused by the clause that coincidentally happens to allow them.
You are doing quite a spin on that clause.
Perhaps....
Funny how you left out the "by." When you include that, it sounds like less of an example than a mandate of how Congress is to promote science and art.
And that's exactly why I left out the "by." But even with it left in, it still could be read as listing an example, although I'll be the first to admit it's an unusual interpretation -- unusual, yet still compatible with a plain-language reading of the clause.
Of course, you can't really call it a "mandate" either because the whole thing is optional: congress may create patent and copyright monopolies, but it doesn't have to.
Unless you have some words from the Framers saying otherwise? Good luck with that.
Well, there's no doubt that some Framers wanted Progress to be Promoted, though I'll agree they were pretty much exclusively thinking of monopolies. I'm writing a paper on copyright at the moment, though, so I think I might do some research into that area.
I seriously doubt the framers intended for the federal government to spend significant revenue on science research.
The framers didn't intend for the Federal government to spend significant revenue on anything. But since the Commerce Clause shot that idea all to Hell anyway, why not?
First of all, your link is broken do to an extraneous slash mark. Here's the correct one.
Second, does this mean the software is complete and stable enough that it can reliably be used to make and receive calls through the UI?
Re:Google Andriod is about to be hit by a steamrol
on
Android Phones Delayed
·
· Score: 1
The cellphone platforms of tomorrow will be Apple iPhone, Google Android, and Nokia Qtopia.
I hope you're right. Because if that happens then I won't even care who wins; they're all infinitely better than the locked-down stupidity that's available now.
And if you are not aware, Hezbollah _is_ in the Lebanese government. And you should see what they do when they don't get their way.
I don't really know how intertwined the political party and terrorist halves of that organization are, so I'll concede your point. However, saying that (as a political party) Hezbollah is "in" the government isn't quite the same as saying that it is the government -- presumably, the Lebanese government contains legitimate, non-Hezbollah parts, right?
Again, without being offensive, do you really think that it is logical that any one large government, whether it be the US, Israel, or China, could bully it's way around the world like that?
Since when did logic have anything to do with international politics? I don't think either of us was claiming that it'd be a good idea.
However, the fact that -- as you say -- the U.S. has done it, on multiple occasions, despite it being stupid, is a very good deterrent for governments who don't want it to happen to them next.
Your answer sounds like the punchline to a joke. I think that you really underestimate those 'stupid Arabs'.
Yeah, sorry, my dad always likes to jokingly answer that when I ask him how to do something difficult. However, what it means is "I don't know." So no, I didn't intend to underestimate the Arabs.
Well, I'm in infantry not intelligence, but I will tell you that these cell-based organizations are a one-way flow of information only. Anything that flows from the bottom back up goes through many layers of insulation, often traveling hundreds of kilometers. Getting to clean Al Quaeda's toilets might be easy. Getting to wipe Osama's ass won't be.
Okay, so it wouldn't be easy. But "not easy" is not the same as "impossible." I think we could have managed it, especially if we had thrown even a fraction of the resources behind it that we did the assault.
American machoism would be very well excused for crying for blood after having the Pentagon, Twin Towers, and 4 airplanes destroyed. At what cost? I don't remember that _ever_ being a consideration of US interests other than science and education, and especially not military interests.
Yep. Sucks, don't it?
And what does Iraq have to do with all this? It's the golden rule: he with the gold (oil) gets the US to rule them:)
Right: exactly nothing, except that patriotic fervor over terrorism provided a convenient excuse.
However, I agree with the goal of continued operations, even if not with the strategy.
That's an interesting statement. What are you defining the goals and strategy to be?
Ford sells you a car that must be filled with gasoline before it works. Microsoft sells an OS that must be activated to work.
WTF? Are you too stupid to see that those aren't even slightly similar? Sure, the cars Ford sells require gas. But you don't have to buy the gas from Ford!
The software equivalent of needing to buy gas for a Ford car to work is having to get application software (not necessarily from Microsoft) for your PC to work. A car analogy for Windows activation is Ford requiring you to borrow they key from them in order to turn on the car, with the possibility of refusing to give it to you if you have it serviced and they don't like what what brand of spare parts you used.
Did it occur to you that the "recession" you mentioned--that is, a condition in which the supply of labor exceeds demand--means that you aren't worth as much as during times of tight supply?
So when the recession ends and your value goes up, you just find a new job at the new market value, right?
Oh, wait -- the non-compete says you can't, and instead have to keep working at your old, now undervalued, rate or starve to death on the street!
Here's the problem with your argument: for every person who actually does read and understand the non-compete and tries to negotiate, there's N dumbasses who don't. So, essentially, smart people's bargaining power is being eroded by everyone else's stupidity. This externality is not compensated for by the "free" market.
You did know that Georgia already had a web site for all the state parks, didn't you?
The only real difference between this new site and that one is that they've added a "search by activity and zip code" function. All the information was already there and reasonably easy to find before, however.
Encrytion is not in every circumstance easy to set up, but for example Thunderbird together with EnigMail... just plain easy to use and doesn't take a long time to teach.
I actually just set that up (literally -- I created my key immediately before typing this), and I think it could be easier. Namely, after installing EnigMail in Thunderbird, it didn't immediately work. Why was this? Because I needed to install GnuPG separately, which was not mentioned in the "how to install in Thunderbird" steps on EnigMail's Thunderbird addon page. Either it ought to be added to that list, or (better yet) GnuPG itself ought to be somehow included in the EnigMail installer itself.
Really? Have you never heard of Hezbollah? Saddam Hussein?
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Hezbollah isn't a government, and Saddam Hussein only hid after he lost control of Iraq.
Besides, it's Israel that's really pissed off about Hezbollah, not us.
The US made the mistake (more than once) of overthrowing an opposing government. Then who's in charge? I'm sure that it looks easy to arm-chair generals, but believe me it's a lot more complicated than "bang-bang we won".
Oh, no doubt. But that opposing government, if it's of a small, non-nuclear country, certainly can't stop us from doing it (or anything else) if we decide to.
The Taliban government was displaced because they refused to turn over Bin Laden. That was a huge mistake. The Taliban may have been religious extremists, but they did much good for their country. Of course, I doubt that much of the good of the Taliban has been reported in Western media. Google "taliban opium" for starters.
I don't understand what you're getting at here, either. How does this refute my point that (assuming they would have wanted to in the first place) the Taliban would have chosen to refrain from carrying out the 9/11 attacks out of self-preservation?
However, how do you think that 'terrorist' organizations are infiltrated?
Very carefully?
Always treat your enemy as smarter than you, especially when you are in their territory. I do not believe that the US could infiltrate Al Quaeda.
I'm no CIA agent, so I don't feel qualified to opine about this. But considering how open the Al Qaida recruitment seems to have been (attracting people from many different countries, including, I believe, the US) I can't believe it would be impossible.
And don't forget the military show that the US population needed after the fall of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
First of all, that's just stupid (not your argument, but the fact that the US population really would demand that). Second, but at what cost? Surely, if we had had a competent government, it could have managed a cheaper show of force? Third, even if I agreed that a show of force was desirable, that was Afghanistan. WTF does Iraq have to do with anything?
The vast majority of continued operations, so far as I understand, are preventative measures.
Interesting euphemism for "occupation" you've got there.
Why do you suppose that a small non-state organization could hurt the US, but a state could not?
Simple: a state can't hide.
Most Americans don't appear to be aware of this, but Osama bin Laden (you know, the guy actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks) is still at large. The government of the country that he (is or was) in, however, is completely destroyed. Now, do you think the Taliban would have chosen to conduct similar attacks directly, knowing the consequences?
The scope of CIA combat operations is very limited and not designed for prolong, nor widespread, combat.
Exactly my point! We don't need prolonged or widespread combat; we need to infiltrate terrorist organizations and assassinate their leadership!
In short, we both agree that the US military (Army, Air Force, and Navy in particular) are currently not designed for the type of operations currently being performed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm asserting not only that, but also that the vast majority of those operations were and are unnecessary to begin with. (Especially in Iraq -- that was a complete non sequitur anyway!)
One day, computer vision will be so good that you can give it a single photograph, it'll grind away for a few minutes and create an entire 3d world containing every object in the photograph, a mesh of the terrain, etc.
No, it won't be. Even if you assumed it could infer the geometry as well as human (remember, you're talking about a single photo here, so it wouldn't have any parallax to go on and would have to rely on a library of "previous experience" instead), it would still have no information for any occluded objects. Even a human can't tell what's on the other side of a brick wall!
No, it was by a criminal organization not connected to any state at all.
Your argument was that the US would only ever have to fight large, nuclear states.
No, my argument was that, of the states that the US might fight, only the large nuclear ones would have a chance of hurting people within the U.S. Entities which are not states are entirely different, and not included in my argument.
Of course, the actual point I'm getting at here is that the military is designed to engage in well-defined combat with other states. It is not appropriate for use against non-state entities; we would likely be better off handling "terrorism" with the CIA or something.
Whether you view it as science or not, what is so wrong about teaching creationism so that people get both sides of the debate instead of being spoon fed what a minority believes?
First of all, you can't dismiss the issue of whether it's viewed as science or not; that's the very crux of the problem! If all the creationists wanted was to have Christian mythology taught in the same context as Greek, Norse, and whatever other kind of mythology, then we wouldn't have a problem. But they don't. They want it to be taught as if it were (literally) the Gospel Truth, as part of (or rather, a replacement for) science class.
And that's what's wrong: whether creationism is True or not is irrelevant, because science isn't concerned with Truth. Science is concerned with rigor and proof instead. Science is nothing more or less than the application of the Scientific Method. Period. That's all.
In contrast, creationist arguments (including "Intelligent Design") explicitly reject the Scientific Method, choosing to instead assume that "because we don't know this, it must be unknowable and therefore God did it." Including such bullshit in science class would completely undermine it (which is exactly what the proponents of "Intelligent Design" want, of course), which is intolerable. Essentially, what the teachers would have to say is something like "Okay, so here's the Scientific Method, which is the fundamental basis of all science and which all scientific theories follow, except this theory (i.e., "ID") that doesn't but which the state says I have to claim is science anyway." I mean really, WTF?!
I've heard of 'expanding earth' in passing. I think it was just as a joke.
Actually, in contrast to bullshit like "Intelligent Design," I think the "expanding earth" theory is useful, if only as a pedagogical exercise. (First, let me make sure we're talking about the same thing: the theory that there's no such thing as a force of gravity, but that everything in the universe is constantly increasing in size so that it seems that way.) By having students think through this theory, and find evidence to refute it, the Scientific Method can be demonstrated.
Slashdot Mirror
If they're images, then you should use TIFF (or perhaps PNG). However, it doesn't make sense for them to be "multi-page." If they're documents, then PDF is appropriate.
I would suggest that your client doesn't know WTF they want.
And it's not because it's nerdy (as the summary opines). It's simply because its about maintenance of poorly-designed shit. You might as well call it glorified janitorial work.
In contrast, creating new stuff, as actual programmers and engineers do -- that's interesting!
I really want to like the OpenMoko stuff, but I can't yet because of things like this:
I'm sorry, but there's really no use talking about a "phone" that can't even reliably make phone calls yet!
You must have gotten them right as they were being discontinued. In terms of normal prices, Xerox wants $350 for a printer that's relatively shitty.
In other words, not only is it out of the price range to begin with, it doesn't even count.
If ATI is planning on dropping support for OpenGL, then it must be planning on dropping support for Macs and non-Xbox game consoles, too.
So release a GPL driver that doesn't optimize! I don't even care if my framerate is a little low compared to Windows; I just want it to at least work!
Does such a thing exist for less than, say, $250?
I know that last time I looked, I had to give up Postscript to get a (network, laser) printer in my price range. I ended up with Brother HL-2070N, which is okay except that it still seems to require a driver on each client even when printing over the network, and it supports PCL instead of Postscript.
I am not. I'm arguing for the goal espoused by the clause that coincidentally happens to allow them.
Perhaps....
And that's exactly why I left out the "by." But even with it left in, it still could be read as listing an example, although I'll be the first to admit it's an unusual interpretation -- unusual, yet still compatible with a plain-language reading of the clause.
Of course, you can't really call it a "mandate" either because the whole thing is optional: congress may create patent and copyright monopolies, but it doesn't have to.
Well, there's no doubt that some Framers wanted Progress to be Promoted, though I'll agree they were pretty much exclusively thinking of monopolies. I'm writing a paper on copyright at the moment, though, so I think I might do some research into that area.
The framers didn't intend for the Federal government to spend significant revenue on anything. But since the Commerce Clause shot that idea all to Hell anyway, why not?
First of all, your link is broken do to an extraneous slash mark. Here's the correct one.
Second, does this mean the software is complete and stable enough that it can reliably be used to make and receive calls through the UI?
I hope you're right. Because if that happens then I won't even care who wins; they're all infinitely better than the locked-down stupidity that's available now.
I don't really know how intertwined the political party and terrorist halves of that organization are, so I'll concede your point. However, saying that (as a political party) Hezbollah is "in" the government isn't quite the same as saying that it is the government -- presumably, the Lebanese government contains legitimate, non-Hezbollah parts, right?
Since when did logic have anything to do with international politics? I don't think either of us was claiming that it'd be a good idea.
However, the fact that -- as you say -- the U.S. has done it, on multiple occasions, despite it being stupid, is a very good deterrent for governments who don't want it to happen to them next.
Yeah, sorry, my dad always likes to jokingly answer that when I ask him how to do something difficult. However, what it means is "I don't know." So no, I didn't intend to underestimate the Arabs.
Okay, so it wouldn't be easy. But "not easy" is not the same as "impossible." I think we could have managed it, especially if we had thrown even a fraction of the resources behind it that we did the assault.
Yep. Sucks, don't it?
Right: exactly nothing, except that patriotic fervor over terrorism provided a convenient excuse.
That's an interesting statement. What are you defining the goals and strategy to be?
WTF? Are you too stupid to see that those aren't even slightly similar? Sure, the cars Ford sells require gas. But you don't have to buy the gas from Ford!
The software equivalent of needing to buy gas for a Ford car to work is having to get application software (not necessarily from Microsoft) for your PC to work. A car analogy for Windows activation is Ford requiring you to borrow they key from them in order to turn on the car, with the possibility of refusing to give it to you if you have it serviced and they don't like what what brand of spare parts you used.
So when the recession ends and your value goes up, you just find a new job at the new market value, right?
Oh, wait -- the non-compete says you can't, and instead have to keep working at your old, now undervalued, rate or starve to death on the street!
Here's the problem with your argument: for every person who actually does read and understand the non-compete and tries to negotiate, there's N dumbasses who don't. So, essentially, smart people's bargaining power is being eroded by everyone else's stupidity. This externality is not compensated for by the "free" market.
You did know that Georgia already had a web site for all the state parks, didn't you?
The only real difference between this new site and that one is that they've added a "search by activity and zip code" function. All the information was already there and reasonably easy to find before, however.
Hey, as long as we get free food from the company cafeteria and Fridays to work on our own pet projects, I (as a Georgia resident) am all for it!
I actually just set that up (literally -- I created my key immediately before typing this), and I think it could be easier. Namely, after installing EnigMail in Thunderbird, it didn't immediately work. Why was this? Because I needed to install GnuPG separately, which was not mentioned in the "how to install in Thunderbird" steps on EnigMail's Thunderbird addon page. Either it ought to be added to that list, or (better yet) GnuPG itself ought to be somehow included in the EnigMail installer itself.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Hezbollah isn't a government, and Saddam Hussein only hid after he lost control of Iraq.
Besides, it's Israel that's really pissed off about Hezbollah, not us.
Oh, no doubt. But that opposing government, if it's of a small, non-nuclear country, certainly can't stop us from doing it (or anything else) if we decide to.
I don't understand what you're getting at here, either. How does this refute my point that (assuming they would have wanted to in the first place) the Taliban would have chosen to refrain from carrying out the 9/11 attacks out of self-preservation?
Very carefully?
I'm no CIA agent, so I don't feel qualified to opine about this. But considering how open the Al Qaida recruitment seems to have been (attracting people from many different countries, including, I believe, the US) I can't believe it would be impossible.
First of all, that's just stupid (not your argument, but the fact that the US population really would demand that). Second, but at what cost? Surely, if we had had a competent government, it could have managed a cheaper show of force? Third, even if I agreed that a show of force was desirable, that was Afghanistan. WTF does Iraq have to do with anything?
Interesting euphemism for "occupation" you've got there.
Simple: a state can't hide.
Most Americans don't appear to be aware of this, but Osama bin Laden (you know, the guy actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks) is still at large. The government of the country that he (is or was) in, however, is completely destroyed. Now, do you think the Taliban would have chosen to conduct similar attacks directly, knowing the consequences?
Exactly my point! We don't need prolonged or widespread combat; we need to infiltrate terrorist organizations and assassinate their leadership!
I'm asserting not only that, but also that the vast majority of those operations were and are unnecessary to begin with. (Especially in Iraq -- that was a complete non sequitur anyway!)
No, it won't be. Even if you assumed it could infer the geometry as well as human (remember, you're talking about a single photo here, so it wouldn't have any parallax to go on and would have to rely on a library of "previous experience" instead), it would still have no information for any occluded objects. Even a human can't tell what's on the other side of a brick wall!
No, it was by a criminal organization not connected to any state at all.
No, my argument was that, of the states that the US might fight, only the large nuclear ones would have a chance of hurting people within the U.S. Entities which are not states are entirely different, and not included in my argument.
Of course, the actual point I'm getting at here is that the military is designed to engage in well-defined combat with other states. It is not appropriate for use against non-state entities; we would likely be better off handling "terrorism" with the CIA or something.
Nope, that part isn't relevant either, because it's also about the library making (and perhaps distributing) copies, rather than lending originals.
It is interesting, though.
That wasn't by a "small, non-nuclear-armed country." Try again.
First of all, you can't dismiss the issue of whether it's viewed as science or not; that's the very crux of the problem! If all the creationists wanted was to have Christian mythology taught in the same context as Greek, Norse, and whatever other kind of mythology, then we wouldn't have a problem. But they don't. They want it to be taught as if it were (literally) the Gospel Truth, as part of (or rather, a replacement for) science class.
And that's what's wrong: whether creationism is True or not is irrelevant, because science isn't concerned with Truth. Science is concerned with rigor and proof instead. Science is nothing more or less than the application of the Scientific Method. Period. That's all.
In contrast, creationist arguments (including "Intelligent Design") explicitly reject the Scientific Method, choosing to instead assume that "because we don't know this, it must be unknowable and therefore God did it." Including such bullshit in science class would completely undermine it (which is exactly what the proponents of "Intelligent Design" want, of course), which is intolerable. Essentially, what the teachers would have to say is something like "Okay, so here's the Scientific Method, which is the fundamental basis of all science and which all scientific theories follow, except this theory (i.e., "ID") that doesn't but which the state says I have to claim is science anyway." I mean really, WTF?!
Actually, in contrast to bullshit like "Intelligent Design," I think the "expanding earth" theory is useful, if only as a pedagogical exercise. (First, let me make sure we're talking about the same thing: the theory that there's no such thing as a force of gravity, but that everything in the universe is constantly increasing in size so that it seems that way.) By having students think through this theory, and find evidence to refute it, the Scientific Method can be demonstrated.