That's the case in America too, because crooks don't want to get shot. In some very anti-self-defense countries (i.e. England), it's not unheard of for crooks to break into your house while you're there and take your stuff, confident that you're legally prohibited from doing anything to stop them.
Come, now. Isn't this part of the classical heap paradox? If you're willing to pay $200, why not $201? This is actually a classical paradox in decision theory, see the dollar auction example.
If decent people do unintentionally embarrassing things, and if enough of them are recorded as doing such, then the stigma will diminish as doing unintentionally embarrassing things in public every so often won't be seen as unusual.
It's certainly possible that this is going to be 1999 all over again, but I doubt it. There's no OS or processor transition to render old games unusable on new machines (as has been the case, almost continuously, since 1999). Mac usage seems to be growing more than it has at any time in that period. On the other hand, Apple is settling for integrated graphics, which they never did during the PowerPC era. Mac users have to upgrade either to MacBook Pro or iMac (from MacBook and Mac mini, respectively) if they want to game, and unless significant numbers of them do, there's even less of a market for Mac games.
Style sheets are not for amateurs or the general public; extensions are precisely for them.
Extensions aren't for the general public to code on their own anymore than stylesheets are, but just as pre-coded and pre-compiled extensions can be offered to the general public, so can pre-made CSS filters.
It clearly seems that you are the revisionist here. Korea is remembered as an American war because the Americans fought it, but it started when the North launched an unprovoked invasion of the South and the United Nations ordered a military response against the North. MacArthur's provocation of the Chinese was a side issue--China was never on good terms with the USSR, a fact that the Nixon administration used to great advantage by normalizing relations with China.
It takes some massive dose of revisionism to call it some spread of communism in the first place, when it was just a country (two, if you count Korea too), that just wanted to reunite.
South Korea didn't want to be "reunited" by force with some batshit communist dictatorship. And when South Vietnam fell, we took out as many Vietnamese refugees as we could. By that standard, Napoleon was just a swell guy who wanted to unite Europe, and Japan was a benevolent empire that wanted to unite East Asia.
War is a result of *being* human, not a relic from our bestial past. Animals don't go to war. They fight, individually and as a family or pack, but that's it. War, with tactics, strategy, and politics, is uniquely human construct.
That's like saying eating cheeseburgers is uniquely human--true, because only humans are intelligent enough to make cheeseburgers, but completely evasive as the primary issue. What is war, other than humans fighting each other as packs? The fact that we're capable of applying our intelligence to the act doesn't mean the act itself is fundamentally different. Human beings make sex very complicated, but you're not going to go around saying that sex is a uniquely human construct.
What does a publisher add to a product, besides mark-up? 20 years ago they could claim "distribution", but now, they add NOTHING. Anything that can be translated to an electronic format can be sent anywhere in the world.
Actually, publishers still add something potentially valuable--their names and reputations. Take Ambrosia Software. Every Mac user knows about Ambrosia Software and about the fact that they only release quality products with their name on it. Yet, in recent years, Ambrosia has only released games that were actually developed by others--for instance, they distribute Introversion's games (Uplink, Darwinia, and Defcon) for the Mac. Ambrosia is one publisher that wouldn't even exist today but for the very technology you say makes publishers obsolete.
Curious that the "Webclip" feature coming in Leopard was conspicously demo'd by Steve, and yet is missing from both versions of the Safari 3 Public Beta
That's because it requires the Leopard version of Dashboard in order to work.
Google "many worlds theory". Just because a word is given a certain meaning at one point in time doesn't mean that that meaning still stands as we increase our understanding of the (possible) nature of reality.
Hell, there's a good example there--"world" used to unambiguously mean the same thing as "universe", but we got so used to "world" meaning the planet Earth, that usage diminished in favor of "universe".
I think the authors were big supporters of the many worlds interpretation, and they claimed that certain calculations in quantum mechanics required the assumption of many worlds, though others considered it just a mathematical convenience.
Philosophy does the same thing. In philosophy we talk about "possible worlds"--a "possible world" is a world that doesn't contradict itself. The world we live in is a possible world, of course, but it is also the actual world (according to the conventional interpretation), while the possible world in which Al Gore is President is possible but not actual. (An example of an impossible world would be the world in which 1+1=3.)
Anyway, long after we all became used to talking about possible worlds as a convenience, here comes David Lewis with "modal realism"--the idea that possible worlds actually exist, and by "the actual world" we're only talking about the world we happen to be in. Lewis famously characterizes the most common objection to this as the "incredulous stare".
You forget, of course, that all these problems can be solved if you posit multiple universes. If Phil (Universe 1-1) goes back in time to Phil (Universe 1) to give him a copy of all market data from 2007 to 2057, Phil (Universe 1) has split off into Phil (Universe 1-2). This is only a simplification, and some say that even quantum indeterminacy can be explained this way (i.e. we explain superposition by saying that one state exists in Universe 1 and another state exists in Universe 2, and our only uncertainty is which universe we are in.)
Applying this to the plot of "Star Trek: First Contact", the Borg travel back in time from Universe 1-1 to cause Universe 1-2 to split off, so that in Universe 1-2 humanity never develops warp drive. However, when the Enterprise travels into Universe 1-2, they split it further into 1-2-1, a timeline in which the Borg are stopped by the Federation. This has been used to explain, for instance, continuity errors in Star Trek Enterprise--Enterprise takes place in Universe 1-2-1, whereas the original series, TNG, most if not all of DS9, and much if not all of Voyager take place in Universe 1-1.
Note: When I talk about a certain universe, I'm actually talking about a set of universes conveniently grouped together--for instance, if a universe split occurs due to quantum superposition, there would be an uncountably large number of universes which, on the macro scale, are completely identical. Likewise we can group together universes split apart by time travel and other alternate possibilities. Interestingly enough, there's a TNG episode where something goes wrong with Worf, and he keeps jumping into these different universes. The famous "mirror universe" is another example--that one evidently split off, according to Enterprise, when Zephram Cochrane decided to shoot the Vulcans and steal their ship instead of making peace with them.
Even on OS X, though, I don't run Safari. It's barely customizable in an age when Firefox extensions have completely rewritten the rules of browsing. Why would I want to see ads? Why browse the way some web site or computer corporation thinks I should?
Who says you do? Under advanced preferences in Safari, you can set your own stylesheet. Mine blocks ads and I've used it in the past to redesign other people's webpages. Most of what you're talking about can be implemented in CSS, and CSS is also an open standard (unlike Firefox extensions). Even more, this is why CSS was invented--the whole idea of "cascading stylesheets" is that they can supersede each other, and your personal CSS supersedes everything.
There's no doubt the Firefox extension system is incredible, but you overstate (and misstate) your case.
Possible theory, but the "high-level" parts of the government are far from infallible, and Al-Qaeda didn't exist in 1985 when the "Aurora" line-item slipped out. Other sources I've read indicate that "Aurora" was the codename for spending on the B-2 stealth bomber, and not the Mach 5 spyplane we always hear about--not that the spyplane doesn't exist, mind you.
"Wouldn't the sentence "I want to put hyphens between Fish and And and And and Chips on my Fish-And-Chips sign" have been clearer if quotation marks had been used between Fish and and and and and And and And and and and and and And and And and and and and and Chips as well as after Chips?"
Imagine if you hired a contractor and he refused to give you a breakdown, line by line, of his expenses. You'd fire him in a heartbeat, right?
That depends. If I'm hiring a contractor to destroy countries, assassinate my enemies, kill people, find out other people's secrets, and so forth, I would probably understand if he didn't want to share his methods with me.
Of course, a better analogy is this: we, the taxpayers, are like shareholders of a corporation. Do corporate officers keep secrets from the shareholders who own the company they are simply hired to manage? The answer is yes! One part of a company will even keep secrets from another (try getting a job at an Apple Store and just see if you get to read the source code to iTunes, or learn about the planned features of Mac OS X 10.6).
Slashdot Mirror
That's the case in America too, because crooks don't want to get shot. In some very anti-self-defense countries (i.e. England), it's not unheard of for crooks to break into your house while you're there and take your stuff, confident that you're legally prohibited from doing anything to stop them.
That's true, but significantly more basic than the point I was making. If you have nothing to contribute please don't bother replying.
Come, now. Isn't this part of the classical heap paradox? If you're willing to pay $200, why not $201? This is actually a classical paradox in decision theory, see the dollar auction example.
However, Eris's moon Dysnomia was named after a mythological demon of lawlessness.
If decent people do unintentionally embarrassing things, and if enough of them are recorded as doing such, then the stigma will diminish as doing unintentionally embarrassing things in public every so often won't be seen as unusual.
I think you left out recreational drugs, although that's a controversial enough example of your point that I can understand why.
So people in Denmark are expected to run away from their own homes if they are broken into?
I suppose flying on airlines that provide power plugins is impossible for you.
It's certainly possible that this is going to be 1999 all over again, but I doubt it. There's no OS or processor transition to render old games unusable on new machines (as has been the case, almost continuously, since 1999). Mac usage seems to be growing more than it has at any time in that period. On the other hand, Apple is settling for integrated graphics, which they never did during the PowerPC era. Mac users have to upgrade either to MacBook Pro or iMac (from MacBook and Mac mini, respectively) if they want to game, and unless significant numbers of them do, there's even less of a market for Mac games.
Extensions aren't for the general public to code on their own anymore than stylesheets are, but just as pre-coded and pre-compiled extensions can be offered to the general public, so can pre-made CSS filters.
It clearly seems that you are the revisionist here. Korea is remembered as an American war because the Americans fought it, but it started when the North launched an unprovoked invasion of the South and the United Nations ordered a military response against the North. MacArthur's provocation of the Chinese was a side issue--China was never on good terms with the USSR, a fact that the Nixon administration used to great advantage by normalizing relations with China.
South Korea didn't want to be "reunited" by force with some batshit communist dictatorship. And when South Vietnam fell, we took out as many Vietnamese refugees as we could. By that standard, Napoleon was just a swell guy who wanted to unite Europe, and Japan was a benevolent empire that wanted to unite East Asia.
Seriously? You have no idea how many times I've wanted to do that. Re-sorting tabs is great too.
That's like saying eating cheeseburgers is uniquely human--true, because only humans are intelligent enough to make cheeseburgers, but completely evasive as the primary issue. What is war, other than humans fighting each other as packs? The fact that we're capable of applying our intelligence to the act doesn't mean the act itself is fundamentally different. Human beings make sex very complicated, but you're not going to go around saying that sex is a uniquely human construct.
It's called CSS. You can load a stylesheet into Safari that does ad-blocking--here's a good stylesheet to use
Actually, publishers still add something potentially valuable--their names and reputations. Take Ambrosia Software. Every Mac user knows about Ambrosia Software and about the fact that they only release quality products with their name on it. Yet, in recent years, Ambrosia has only released games that were actually developed by others--for instance, they distribute Introversion's games (Uplink, Darwinia, and Defcon) for the Mac. Ambrosia is one publisher that wouldn't even exist today but for the very technology you say makes publishers obsolete.
That's because it requires the Leopard version of Dashboard in order to work.
Hell, there's a good example there--"world" used to unambiguously mean the same thing as "universe", but we got so used to "world" meaning the planet Earth, that usage diminished in favor of "universe".
Philosophy does the same thing. In philosophy we talk about "possible worlds"--a "possible world" is a world that doesn't contradict itself. The world we live in is a possible world, of course, but it is also the actual world (according to the conventional interpretation), while the possible world in which Al Gore is President is possible but not actual. (An example of an impossible world would be the world in which 1+1=3.)
Anyway, long after we all became used to talking about possible worlds as a convenience, here comes David Lewis with "modal realism"--the idea that possible worlds actually exist, and by "the actual world" we're only talking about the world we happen to be in. Lewis famously characterizes the most common objection to this as the "incredulous stare".
You forget, of course, that all these problems can be solved if you posit multiple universes. If Phil (Universe 1-1) goes back in time to Phil (Universe 1) to give him a copy of all market data from 2007 to 2057, Phil (Universe 1) has split off into Phil (Universe 1-2). This is only a simplification, and some say that even quantum indeterminacy can be explained this way (i.e. we explain superposition by saying that one state exists in Universe 1 and another state exists in Universe 2, and our only uncertainty is which universe we are in.)
Applying this to the plot of "Star Trek: First Contact", the Borg travel back in time from Universe 1-1 to cause Universe 1-2 to split off, so that in Universe 1-2 humanity never develops warp drive. However, when the Enterprise travels into Universe 1-2, they split it further into 1-2-1, a timeline in which the Borg are stopped by the Federation. This has been used to explain, for instance, continuity errors in Star Trek Enterprise--Enterprise takes place in Universe 1-2-1, whereas the original series, TNG, most if not all of DS9, and much if not all of Voyager take place in Universe 1-1.
Note: When I talk about a certain universe, I'm actually talking about a set of universes conveniently grouped together--for instance, if a universe split occurs due to quantum superposition, there would be an uncountably large number of universes which, on the macro scale, are completely identical. Likewise we can group together universes split apart by time travel and other alternate possibilities. Interestingly enough, there's a TNG episode where something goes wrong with Worf, and he keeps jumping into these different universes. The famous "mirror universe" is another example--that one evidently split off, according to Enterprise, when Zephram Cochrane decided to shoot the Vulcans and steal their ship instead of making peace with them.
Who says you do? Under advanced preferences in Safari, you can set your own stylesheet. Mine blocks ads and I've used it in the past to redesign other people's webpages. Most of what you're talking about can be implemented in CSS, and CSS is also an open standard (unlike Firefox extensions). Even more, this is why CSS was invented--the whole idea of "cascading stylesheets" is that they can supersede each other, and your personal CSS supersedes everything.
There's no doubt the Firefox extension system is incredible, but you overstate (and misstate) your case.
That's because our user interface is better than yours. We don't like it on our machines and we don't like it on your machines either.
Possible theory, but the "high-level" parts of the government are far from infallible, and Al-Qaeda didn't exist in 1985 when the "Aurora" line-item slipped out. Other sources I've read indicate that "Aurora" was the codename for spending on the B-2 stealth bomber, and not the Mach 5 spyplane we always hear about--not that the spyplane doesn't exist, mind you.
"Wouldn't the sentence "I want to put hyphens between Fish and And and And and Chips on my Fish-And-Chips sign" have been clearer if quotation marks had been used between Fish and and and and and And and And and and and and and And and And and and and and and Chips as well as after Chips?"
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
That depends. If I'm hiring a contractor to destroy countries, assassinate my enemies, kill people, find out other people's secrets, and so forth, I would probably understand if he didn't want to share his methods with me.
Of course, a better analogy is this: we, the taxpayers, are like shareholders of a corporation. Do corporate officers keep secrets from the shareholders who own the company they are simply hired to manage? The answer is yes! One part of a company will even keep secrets from another (try getting a job at an Apple Store and just see if you get to read the source code to iTunes, or learn about the planned features of Mac OS X 10.6).
Yes, that is the basic principle behind forcing them into a spending race they can't win.