It requires needless software development. Instead of honoring robots.txt for sites that don't agree to be indexed, Google will either have to extend robots.txt to allow oppt in or alter their internal code with a list of what they will not index regardless of robots.txt. More cruft and potentially nonstandard extensions on the web is not a good thing. Or Google could just stop indexing any site with an IP addr in Germany.
Or ICE (In case of emergency) or Home. Yeah. That's actually one of the problems I have with the iPhone: it doesn't have a way to phone home if you find it locked.
Those weren't efforts to change the the nature of people. They were efforts to solve problems that were affecting people. Different case entirely. Trying to make people into supermen is what the reference to "perfect[ing] man" is about. Read Rousseau. Actually, it might be better if you, in particular, don't.
Is there any doubt that coercion would follow, since a lot of people would refuse? The effort to perfect man into someone's ideal image has always resulted in mass death.
By appealing to scientific consensus. Consensus is meaningless in science; it is the argument that if enough authorities believe something, that makes it true. That argument irritates me.
Maybe I should have mentioned phosphorus automatically self-assembling structures with a distinct inside and outside that look and act like cell walls? You are missing the point, which was that saying that we do not expect a certain thing to happen does not mean we do not expect other things to happen. Your logic was simply invalid. Your claim (a disordered thing does not lead to an ordered thing, therefore another disordered thing does not lead to another ordered thing) is not a logical inference. Do you mean to say that it is not possible for order to spontaneously arise from a disordered medium? If you do, I have numerous counter-examples. If you mean something else, please say what you mean.
We don't expect to see a pile of bricks self-assemble themselves into a wall
And yet we do expect hydrogen and oxygen to self-assemble into water. A tree is not mobile, but a bird is, despite being made of much the same stuff. Different things are different. You seem to be trying to say that if A cannot lead to B, then C cannot lead to D. This is not a valid logical structure. Please try again.
Technically, only some concepts of got are non-testable, non-replicable and non-falsifiable. Animism is (at least theoretically) all three. There are other belief systems that rely on gods that are a part of nature (and thus subject to natural law) that would also be one or more of the three. The Abrahamic idea of god, and other sky god religions where the divine entity/entities are outside of the rules of nature or even outside of nature itself certainly fit your statement. But there are a lot of religious conceptions which do not.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." - Carl Sagan
Nothing against you, per se. I just hate the very idea of received wisdom in science. To my understanding of science, that is such an unscientific concept that it attempts to reduce science itself to a faith. Yuck.
You probably already know this, but Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design are two very, very different things. Most of the IDers do not believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. Basically, the way I think of it is this: the Young Earth Creationists are ignoring any scientific evidence that doesn't fit their faith; the IDers are trying to fit the evidence into the mold of their faith. I think both are essentially wrong, but the IDers are not necessarily stupid (unlike the Young Earth Creationists). At the very core of the idea of ID, there is no arguing with the premise, that evolution was sparked and guided by a superhuman power. The problem the IDers have is that they fail to realize that the very fact that their premises are not subject to evidence, and especially to disproof, is what renders the whole idea unscientific. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong, but it does mean that it's not scientifically valid and thus not valid to be taught in a science class.
And that way lies the Terror in France, the Killing Fields in Cambodia and the Great Leap Forward in China, all of which were attempts by people to "seriously... weed out the nutjobs". I don't really think that way of thinking leads to good ends. In fact, if I were in charge of weeding out the nutjobs, the people who expressed such sentiments would be exactly the ones I'd want to weed out. Mass murder sounds good and fun if you're the one in charge. It's to protect that rest of us that we don't allow people who are in charge unlimited discretion in the exercise of their powers. (Or at least, we haven't in the past. I'll readily admit that those barriers are breaking down, and it's only a matter of time until the rule of man is the norm, and the rule of law only a pro forma obstacle.)
Except that you missed the point. What the "right wing hate machine" as you put it latched onto was not what Sherrod said; it was the approving reaction of the audience when she said the first part, before she got to how she actually overcame that prejudice.
I was speaking speculatively about the future. I figured everyone would get the tautology that if fewer apps are developed for Android, there would be fewer apps on Android. I guess you're special, too, though.
Clearly, he didn't have to do the work. By not doing the work, his profit per hour went up. That the number of apps on Android went down is incidental to him, but probably not to Android users. Taken in aggregate, the end point is that there are fewer apps on Android, and even fewer really good apps, than on iOS. But that will be seen by Android users, no doubt, as "bad luck" in the Heinlein sense of the term.
Not sure why that was rated informative, when it completely misstates Apple's legal position. When Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the devices apart in court, there's a problem of trade dress, which is basically the IP equivalent of fraud.
But you said it yourself, in a way. Apps are great for day to day stuff - even most day to day business stuff. But they're not the solution for enterprise-level IT work, that's certain. I can't use an app to set up, monitor (past a certain point) and control (past a certain point) the directory servers I'm working on, but I can use apps for email and calendaring and information sharing and quick picture/document creation and most of the things ancillary to that main job. And when your job is only the ancillary stuff - say for marketers or secretaries or managers or product designers or shippers or whatever - well, in that case it may be that all you need boils down into the app format. Apps aren't replacing enterprise IT any time soon, but they may well drive enterprise IT back into the glass house model.
Wow, that's one more adjective than I've ever seen that apostrophe substituting for. But get on with your bad self, anonymous grammar cop. And everyone remember, punctuation is critical. "Let's eat, Grandma" is not the same as "Let's eat Grandma."
MS had, basically, two options: create a new brand for an OS tailored for post-PC devices, or continue with what they had. They chose to create a new (and pretty good, actually) interface in Metro, but then apply it to both post-PC devices and PCs and brand it as Windows in both places. I think that I would have gone the other way, creating a Metro brand to go with the interface, and tailoring it even more closely to post-PC systems, while keeping the Win7 interface on the desktop, and sharing the underlying kernel and as many APIs as possible between the two variants. Time will tell if that was a good decision or not; it was certainly a bold decision, given the success that Apple and Google have had with specific post-PC brands and interfaces.
Re:So where are the rest of the super hi-res scree
on
Apple Unveils New iPad
·
· Score: 1
Not really. The devices are - or at least were, when the first ones came out - resource constrained. On a resource constrained device, you do things to save memory, processing power, etc. Arbitrary scaling consumes memory and processing power, so they eliminated that to make the devices more efficient. The problem is backwards compatibility. If you were to take an app from the original iPhone and put it on a putative new iPhone with, say, 50% more pixels, the icons and other screen elements (many of which are bitmaps, not vector graphics) would be smaller than expected. Since the interface is touch, the size of the elements in absolute measurements (not pixels) is critical, and the user experience would be crap. So Apple has chosen to go with simple doubling, rather than resolution independence, to maintain backwards compatibility and keep the user experience high.
Slashdot Mirror
They're one syllable words. He did all he could for you. You have to do the rest of the comprehension yourself.
It requires needless software development. Instead of honoring robots.txt for sites that don't agree to be indexed, Google will either have to extend robots.txt to allow oppt in or alter their internal code with a list of what they will not index regardless of robots.txt. More cruft and potentially nonstandard extensions on the web is not a good thing. Or Google could just stop indexing any site with an IP addr in Germany.
For God's sake I beg you to use birth control. Oh, who am I kidding? Like that would come up!
Or ICE (In case of emergency) or Home. Yeah. That's actually one of the problems I have with the iPhone: it doesn't have a way to phone home if you find it locked.
Those weren't efforts to change the the nature of people. They were efforts to solve problems that were affecting people. Different case entirely. Trying to make people into supermen is what the reference to "perfect[ing] man" is about. Read Rousseau. Actually, it might be better if you, in particular, don't.
Is there any doubt that coercion would follow, since a lot of people would refuse? The effort to perfect man into someone's ideal image has always resulted in mass death.
By appealing to scientific consensus. Consensus is meaningless in science; it is the argument that if enough authorities believe something, that makes it true. That argument irritates me.
Thanks. I was afraid that was too subtle.
Maybe I should have mentioned phosphorus automatically self-assembling structures with a distinct inside and outside that look and act like cell walls? You are missing the point, which was that saying that we do not expect a certain thing to happen does not mean we do not expect other things to happen. Your logic was simply invalid. Your claim (a disordered thing does not lead to an ordered thing, therefore another disordered thing does not lead to another ordered thing) is not a logical inference. Do you mean to say that it is not possible for order to spontaneously arise from a disordered medium? If you do, I have numerous counter-examples. If you mean something else, please say what you mean.
And yet we do expect hydrogen and oxygen to self-assemble into water. A tree is not mobile, but a bird is, despite being made of much the same stuff. Different things are different. You seem to be trying to say that if A cannot lead to B, then C cannot lead to D. This is not a valid logical structure. Please try again.
Technically, only some concepts of got are non-testable, non-replicable and non-falsifiable. Animism is (at least theoretically) all three. There are other belief systems that rely on gods that are a part of nature (and thus subject to natural law) that would also be one or more of the three. The Abrahamic idea of god, and other sky god religions where the divine entity/entities are outside of the rules of nature or even outside of nature itself certainly fit your statement. But there are a lot of religious conceptions which do not.
Nothing against you, per se. I just hate the very idea of received wisdom in science. To my understanding of science, that is such an unscientific concept that it attempts to reduce science itself to a faith. Yuck.
You probably already know this, but Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design are two very, very different things. Most of the IDers do not believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. Basically, the way I think of it is this: the Young Earth Creationists are ignoring any scientific evidence that doesn't fit their faith; the IDers are trying to fit the evidence into the mold of their faith. I think both are essentially wrong, but the IDers are not necessarily stupid (unlike the Young Earth Creationists). At the very core of the idea of ID, there is no arguing with the premise, that evolution was sparked and guided by a superhuman power. The problem the IDers have is that they fail to realize that the very fact that their premises are not subject to evidence, and especially to disproof, is what renders the whole idea unscientific. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong, but it does mean that it's not scientifically valid and thus not valid to be taught in a science class.
And that way lies the Terror in France, the Killing Fields in Cambodia and the Great Leap Forward in China, all of which were attempts by people to "seriously ... weed out the nutjobs". I don't really think that way of thinking leads to good ends. In fact, if I were in charge of weeding out the nutjobs, the people who expressed such sentiments would be exactly the ones I'd want to weed out. Mass murder sounds good and fun if you're the one in charge. It's to protect that rest of us that we don't allow people who are in charge unlimited discretion in the exercise of their powers. (Or at least, we haven't in the past. I'll readily admit that those barriers are breaking down, and it's only a matter of time until the rule of man is the norm, and the rule of law only a pro forma obstacle.)
Except that you missed the point. What the "right wing hate machine" as you put it latched onto was not what Sherrod said; it was the approving reaction of the audience when she said the first part, before she got to how she actually overcame that prejudice.
I was speaking speculatively about the future. I figured everyone would get the tautology that if fewer apps are developed for Android, there would be fewer apps on Android. I guess you're special, too, though.
Clearly, he didn't have to do the work. By not doing the work, his profit per hour went up. That the number of apps on Android went down is incidental to him, but probably not to Android users. Taken in aggregate, the end point is that there are fewer apps on Android, and even fewer really good apps, than on iOS. But that will be seen by Android users, no doubt, as "bad luck" in the Heinlein sense of the term.
Not sure why that was rated informative, when it completely misstates Apple's legal position. When Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the devices apart in court, there's a problem of trade dress, which is basically the IP equivalent of fraud.
I said "use". You said "productive". Not sure we're talking about the same concept, here.
But you said it yourself, in a way. Apps are great for day to day stuff - even most day to day business stuff. But they're not the solution for enterprise-level IT work, that's certain. I can't use an app to set up, monitor (past a certain point) and control (past a certain point) the directory servers I'm working on, but I can use apps for email and calendaring and information sharing and quick picture/document creation and most of the things ancillary to that main job. And when your job is only the ancillary stuff - say for marketers or secretaries or managers or product designers or shippers or whatever - well, in that case it may be that all you need boils down into the app format. Apps aren't replacing enterprise IT any time soon, but they may well drive enterprise IT back into the glass house model.
Wow, that's one more adjective than I've ever seen that apostrophe substituting for. But get on with your bad self, anonymous grammar cop. And everyone remember, punctuation is critical. "Let's eat, Grandma" is not the same as "Let's eat Grandma."
Correct: no one uses tablets. Lots of people use iPads, though.
MS had, basically, two options: create a new brand for an OS tailored for post-PC devices, or continue with what they had. They chose to create a new (and pretty good, actually) interface in Metro, but then apply it to both post-PC devices and PCs and brand it as Windows in both places. I think that I would have gone the other way, creating a Metro brand to go with the interface, and tailoring it even more closely to post-PC systems, while keeping the Win7 interface on the desktop, and sharing the underlying kernel and as many APIs as possible between the two variants. Time will tell if that was a good decision or not; it was certainly a bold decision, given the success that Apple and Google have had with specific post-PC brands and interfaces.
Not really. The devices are - or at least were, when the first ones came out - resource constrained. On a resource constrained device, you do things to save memory, processing power, etc. Arbitrary scaling consumes memory and processing power, so they eliminated that to make the devices more efficient. The problem is backwards compatibility. If you were to take an app from the original iPhone and put it on a putative new iPhone with, say, 50% more pixels, the icons and other screen elements (many of which are bitmaps, not vector graphics) would be smaller than expected. Since the interface is touch, the size of the elements in absolute measurements (not pixels) is critical, and the user experience would be crap. So Apple has chosen to go with simple doubling, rather than resolution independence, to maintain backwards compatibility and keep the user experience high.
Spelling correction.