When I was in seventh grade, here in the US, I had a teacher who was one of those. Some students in the class were bad at fractions, so she spent the whole year talking about fractions, yammering on about how "Math is rules!" The whole thing didn't succeed in souring my view of math, because I think even though it's based on axioms and logical rules, it's still a beautiful and expressive medium. An elegant proof, to me, still sounds like poetry. What the experience did succeed in doing was souring my view of the entire public school system, and from then on I just wasn't into it at all. It makes me so sad that students growing up here today aren't exposed to math as a beautiful and almost artistic form, but are instead subjected to rote memorization and repetition. This defeats the entire point and reduces mathematics to the same intellectual level as memorizing state capitals. Boring!
This is Spinal Tap is an utterly hilarious "mockumentary" about a hard rock band in the eighties, brought to you by the same folks as Waiting for Guffman and A Mighty Wind. It's news for nerds because, like everybody else in this world, nerds like Spinal Tap. Why don't you?
Maintaining a secure system takes time, know-how, and sometimes even reading some fucking manual.
All it takes is an operating system that doesn't have all its services and bells and whistles turned on out of the box. My mac was pretty secure the first time I booted it up.
It's not the users. It's the fact that the operating system requires so much tough love to get it set up right for the real world.
You're absolutely right, I hope. George W always says that we're getting a distorted view of what's going on in Iraq, but never really offers any examples like you just did. As I think everyone else is bound to point out, people in the US just really like their depressing news.
For me personally, it's not that I don't think we're doing some good for the people of Iraq. Enough people like you come back and tell me about it, and I believe them. My anger at the Iraq war is our pretenses for going in, which turned out to be false false false, the fact that the adventures in Iraq are taking troops away from Afghanistan where we really need them to be, the sensationalist sham that was Saddam Hussein's trial, and the fact that I get the distinct impression that our leaders have not thought of a way out. That, there, is what's upsetting to me.
I say all that with no disrespect whatsoever for the troops who are there in Iraq and for those who have already come home. You're all heroes and should be treated as such. I just lament that your lives were risked or lost in this unwinnable war.
Are you talking about Microsoft there? In iTunes I can import CDs I own and put them on my iPod DRM free. Seriously. I don't know about the Zune but I'm presuming that it's not much different. Buy from the Zune/iTunes store, you get DRM (not always with iTMS nowadays). Buy CDs or pirate them or something, you don't have DRM. What's the difficulty there?
That's a little off-topic though. Regarding your actual point, it's a trade-off. With Apple, you're locked in to hardware; with Microsoft, you're locked in to software. Over time, I would argue that the latter costs you a lot more with upgrades to Windows and Office. It's not really a problem for me because I don't use or need Office to do my work. I still use a mac though because the hardware and the software that's available for it are much more conducive to graphic design tasks*. Also, I like to have an operating system that I can ignore while I'm working. I think before you go 'round saying that Vista is a million times better than OS X, you have to give much better reasons than hardware lock-in.
( *I dual-boot ubuntu and os x on all my machines and spend equal time in each. Only problems with linux is that gimp doesn't support CMYK colour and all the keyboard shortcuts in InkScape are different from Illustrator. )
If that's the case, how come "theories" like Einstein's special and general theory of relativity hold up so well under experimental scrutiny, but "laws" like Newton's law of gravitation don't? Contrary to what everyone's saying here, Newton's law of gravitation did not sufficiently explain even celestial interactions in our own solar system. For instance, the motion of Mercury lies somewhere outside of Newtonian mechanics, but Einstein's general theory of relativity explains it pretty handily.
I might add that Newton's laws of motion, when presented in their differential equation form (F = dp/dt), not their F=ma form, hold up under relativistic circumstances as well. F=ma does not, however, because mass is a relativistic quantity.
There might be better examples, but you get the idea.
See this is the part I am just dumbstruck by. . . . I'm a web developer and for me, getting my layouts to look great in Firefox is cake. Getting them to still look great in IE is almost always a herculean, nearly sysiphean (how many times have you seen THAT word on slashdot?) effort. If I were lazy, I'd just get everything to render okay in Firefox, maybe in Safari too.
He's right; you're not. And the reason is that you're not using the proper definition of "theft".
In the United States, anyway, it's the legal tradition to require intent to deprive someone of their property for an act to be called "theft". For this reason, joyriding is a far less serious crime than grand theft auto, because technically joyriding is not "theft". It's taking a car but without the intent to deprive its owner of the car.
Don't go 'round posting things in topics about which you are ignorant. That's how flamewars get started.
Now hold it down just a minute over there. Join the adult world? Calm down.
I'm a web designer, photographer and illustrator/graphic artist, and I've been using Macromedia and/or Adobe products of various types since I was in high school ten years ago. They're intuitive, effective, and more importantly than either of those I know how to use them. The key combinations in Adobe Illustrator are the same as in Adobe Photoshop are the same as the ones in Macromedia Fireworks, and I can do them all in my sleep.
Now, my little pro-Adobe plug there aside, I'll bet that most other designer/photographer/artists out there feel pretty similarly. At this point, so late in the game, Microsoft would have to provide something FAR superiour to these existing products AND at a reduced price. I don't know if that's gonna be easy for them.
Now, I'm willing to wait and see, of course, being an adult as I am. All I'm saying, and it seems a common notion, is that Microsoft's got a long road ahead of them here. 'Course they've got enough money they can wast^H^H^H^Hspend it any way they so desire.
Glad to know I'm not the only one who's seen this. My gripe is with a client who approved a design that was not feasible to develop in IE5 *and* modern browsers simultaneously. My solution was a dirty filthy javascript kludge that adds more styles to the stylesheet (overriding the ones in the main CSS files of the site) if it knows the client is using IE
As for hipper-than-thou web design . . . I took offense at that comment for a brief second then looked at what I was wearing. No comment.
Here's my favourite trick. Get out of your car or get your passenger to, then hit the walk signal going your way. Doesn't really work if you're that far out in the sticks but for a lot of circumstances it's an option.
Hi there. I'm a web developer/designer. I do flash, too. Good times, right?
I design and build to the XHTML 1.0 transitional standard, and for some bizarre reason one of my clients still makes me test their pages in IE5. When was the last time you even saw a computer that had IE5 on it?
Your objections to design I can't really comment on beyond saying I hope you're not referring to any of mine. But your objection to HTML/CSS doing what javascript used to be necessary for? Really? You prefer writing little-stupid javascript functions to just putting a:hover rule in your CSS? Really?
You, sir, are a rare breed. Hats off to you though; HTML 3.2 is really the only standard the most browsers agree upon (IE6/7 have all those weird box model problems with XHTML 1.0).
We already know that both the standard model and the general relativity are wrong or at least incomplete, but they continue to pass every experiment
(Emphasis mine). If that's true, then how do we "already know" that the standard model and GR are broken? The way that we tell if a theory is broken is by experimentation.
I know you're probably talking about the whole dark matter/energy debate, but neither of those means general relativity is broken, necessarily. They could be indications that general relativity needs some elaboration or, most likely, there exists circumstances where we can experimentally show it to be broken (i.e., not just by observing cosmology from afar but actually in a lab). If we haven't found those circumstances yet, experimentation is how we keep looking. The good news of this article is that one experiment's results, which if accepted would have required major rewriting of theories, were not reproducible. We're one step closer to explaining them.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was in seventh grade, here in the US, I had a teacher who was one of those. Some students in the class were bad at fractions, so she spent the whole year talking about fractions, yammering on about how "Math is rules!" The whole thing didn't succeed in souring my view of math, because I think even though it's based on axioms and logical rules, it's still a beautiful and expressive medium. An elegant proof, to me, still sounds like poetry. What the experience did succeed in doing was souring my view of the entire public school system, and from then on I just wasn't into it at all. It makes me so sad that students growing up here today aren't exposed to math as a beautiful and almost artistic form, but are instead subjected to rote memorization and repetition. This defeats the entire point and reduces mathematics to the same intellectual level as memorizing state capitals. Boring!
Oh my god I can't believe I actually read that as "I Am Not A Scientist But I Play One On TV". . . .
Be back soon guys . . . I'm gonna go outside for a while.
This is Spinal Tap is an utterly hilarious "mockumentary" about a hard rock band in the eighties, brought to you by the same folks as Waiting for Guffman and A Mighty Wind. It's news for nerds because, like everybody else in this world, nerds like Spinal Tap. Why don't you?
lucky. . . .
All it takes is an operating system that doesn't have all its services and bells and whistles turned on out of the box. My mac was pretty secure the first time I booted it up.
It's not the users. It's the fact that the operating system requires so much tough love to get it set up right for the real world.
You're absolutely right, I hope. George W always says that we're getting a distorted view of what's going on in Iraq, but never really offers any examples like you just did. As I think everyone else is bound to point out, people in the US just really like their depressing news.
For me personally, it's not that I don't think we're doing some good for the people of Iraq. Enough people like you come back and tell me about it, and I believe them. My anger at the Iraq war is our pretenses for going in, which turned out to be false false false, the fact that the adventures in Iraq are taking troops away from Afghanistan where we really need them to be, the sensationalist sham that was Saddam Hussein's trial, and the fact that I get the distinct impression that our leaders have not thought of a way out. That, there, is what's upsetting to me.
I say all that with no disrespect whatsoever for the troops who are there in Iraq and for those who have already come home. You're all heroes and should be treated as such. I just lament that your lives were risked or lost in this unwinnable war.
Are you talking about Microsoft there? In iTunes I can import CDs I own and put them on my iPod DRM free. Seriously. I don't know about the Zune but I'm presuming that it's not much different. Buy from the Zune/iTunes store, you get DRM (not always with iTMS nowadays). Buy CDs or pirate them or something, you don't have DRM. What's the difficulty there?
That's a little off-topic though. Regarding your actual point, it's a trade-off. With Apple, you're locked in to hardware; with Microsoft, you're locked in to software. Over time, I would argue that the latter costs you a lot more with upgrades to Windows and Office. It's not really a problem for me because I don't use or need Office to do my work. I still use a mac though because the hardware and the software that's available for it are much more conducive to graphic design tasks*. Also, I like to have an operating system that I can ignore while I'm working. I think before you go 'round saying that Vista is a million times better than OS X, you have to give much better reasons than hardware lock-in.
( *I dual-boot ubuntu and os x on all my machines and spend equal time in each. Only problems with linux is that gimp doesn't support CMYK colour and all the keyboard shortcuts in InkScape are different from Illustrator. )
May I, uhhh, borrow that key?
If that's the case, how come "theories" like Einstein's special and general theory of relativity hold up so well under experimental scrutiny, but "laws" like Newton's law of gravitation don't? Contrary to what everyone's saying here, Newton's law of gravitation did not sufficiently explain even celestial interactions in our own solar system. For instance, the motion of Mercury lies somewhere outside of Newtonian mechanics, but Einstein's general theory of relativity explains it pretty handily.
I might add that Newton's laws of motion, when presented in their differential equation form (F = dp/dt), not their F=ma form, hold up under relativistic circumstances as well. F=ma does not, however, because mass is a relativistic quantity.
There might be better examples, but you get the idea.
Done ;)
Well I, for one, welcome our new . . . wait no I don't!!
See this is the part I am just dumbstruck by. . . . I'm a web developer and for me, getting my layouts to look great in Firefox is cake. Getting them to still look great in IE is almost always a herculean, nearly sysiphean (how many times have you seen THAT word on slashdot?) effort. If I were lazy, I'd just get everything to render okay in Firefox, maybe in Safari too.
He's right; you're not. And the reason is that you're not using the proper definition of "theft".
In the United States, anyway, it's the legal tradition to require intent to deprive someone of their property for an act to be called "theft". For this reason, joyriding is a far less serious crime than grand theft auto, because technically joyriding is not "theft". It's taking a car but without the intent to deprive its owner of the car.
Don't go 'round posting things in topics about which you are ignorant. That's how flamewars get started.
Two words, my anonymous, cowardly friend: Death Ray
"You did it! You finally did it! Damn you all to hell!"
Now hold it down just a minute over there. Join the adult world? Calm down.
I'm a web designer, photographer and illustrator/graphic artist, and I've been using Macromedia and/or Adobe products of various types since I was in high school ten years ago. They're intuitive, effective, and more importantly than either of those I know how to use them. The key combinations in Adobe Illustrator are the same as in Adobe Photoshop are the same as the ones in Macromedia Fireworks, and I can do them all in my sleep.
Now, my little pro-Adobe plug there aside, I'll bet that most other designer/photographer/artists out there feel pretty similarly. At this point, so late in the game, Microsoft would have to provide something FAR superiour to these existing products AND at a reduced price. I don't know if that's gonna be easy for them.
Now, I'm willing to wait and see, of course, being an adult as I am. All I'm saying, and it seems a common notion, is that Microsoft's got a long road ahead of them here. 'Course they've got enough money they can wast^H^H^H^Hspend it any way they so desire.
Go banana slugs!
"In jest". Joking. Get it?
Glad to know I'm not the only one who's seen this. My gripe is with a client who approved a design that was not feasible to develop in IE5 *and* modern browsers simultaneously. My solution was a dirty filthy javascript kludge that adds more styles to the stylesheet (overriding the ones in the main CSS files of the site) if it knows the client is using IE
As for hipper-than-thou web design . . . I took offense at that comment for a brief second then looked at what I was wearing. No comment.
Here's my favourite trick. Get out of your car or get your passenger to, then hit the walk signal going your way. Doesn't really work if you're that far out in the sticks but for a lot of circumstances it's an option.
Hi there. I'm a web developer/designer. I do flash, too. Good times, right?
I design and build to the XHTML 1.0 transitional standard, and for some bizarre reason one of my clients still makes me test their pages in IE5. When was the last time you even saw a computer that had IE5 on it?
Your objections to design I can't really comment on beyond saying I hope you're not referring to any of mine. But your objection to HTML/CSS doing what javascript used to be necessary for? Really? You prefer writing little-stupid javascript functions to just putting a :hover rule in your CSS? Really?
You, sir, are a rare breed. Hats off to you though; HTML 3.2 is really the only standard the most browsers agree upon (IE6/7 have all those weird box model problems with XHTML 1.0).
*whoooosh!*
It actually follows from the third law of thermodynamics.
You were seeing the phosphors on a CRT. Totally different animal.
(Emphasis mine). If that's true, then how do we "already know" that the standard model and GR are broken? The way that we tell if a theory is broken is by experimentation.
I know you're probably talking about the whole dark matter/energy debate, but neither of those means general relativity is broken, necessarily. They could be indications that general relativity needs some elaboration or, most likely, there exists circumstances where we can experimentally show it to be broken (i.e., not just by observing cosmology from afar but actually in a lab). If we haven't found those circumstances yet, experimentation is how we keep looking. The good news of this article is that one experiment's results, which if accepted would have required major rewriting of theories, were not reproducible. We're one step closer to explaining them.