Dude, it's time to learn how to set up DNS. Honest, it's not that hard. Your DHCP server can automatically update the DNS for you. Try it—you'll like it!
Holding a view that closely resembles materialism and calling yourself a Buddhist is like hoarding what you have, never helping anyone in need, and calling yourself a Christian. Of course you can do it, but why bother? At least calling yourself a Christian when you aren't one gets you some kind of social benefit—calling yourself a Buddhist when you aren't gets you no benefit at all.
Oh for heaven's sake. If you aren't a computer scientist (and the above statement demonstrates that you are not), don't make assertions about computer science. And if you aren't a mathematician, don't make assertions about math. "Math is continuous?" That's about as meaningful as saying "pink is ten." What you are talking about is a difference in notation. Look up lambda calculus on wikipedia, and get back to us when you've cleaned up the brain cells that dribbled out your ears when your brain exploded. Don't even get me started on type theory...
Those are farmers, not programmers. Programmers sacrifice chickens. Everybody knows that.
(FWIW, I'm a Buddhist, I never go to church, and one of the Buddhist courses I took back when I started was a course on logic and critical thinking, which as far as I was able to tell was pretty much the same system of logic that we use today. I think that contradicts pretty much all of the above wild-eyed assertions, but I'm sure someone will correct me, or else incorrectly state that Buddhism isn't a religion...)
My main concern about cocoa is not organic versus conventional, but slave versus fair. This is a really big problem, which makes me very reluctant to buy chocolate at all. The problem of fraud that you describe is real, and serious, but the answer is not to give up and just let the slavery continue.
There are lots of definitions of "organic," and the farming industry definitely wants your definition to be the one that's accepted, because that way they can charge a premium for nothing of value. But in fact this is not what most people who are serious about organic food mean when they say "organic." The way you deal with the bugs is either to come up with environmental solutions (e.g., plant your apples on a ridge line, so that it's windy) or by planting things nearby that either attract the insects away from your crop, or repel the insects. Monoculture is a great way to attract massive bug infestations; small organic farms with varied crops do better. But the bottom line is that you are going to lose some of your crop to bugs—there's no avoiding that if you are running an actual organic farm.
That's not what I read the study as saying—I didn't get the impression that it took a strong position on whether or not the pesticides were safe. But in fact I tend to agree with your position here, in the sense that the reason I actually don't like to buy conventional food is because of the introduction of pesticides in the ground water, and exposure to pesticides for farm workers.
You know, I've been buying organic food for over thirty years now, and I can't think of a single time when I've picked an organic tomato over a conventional tomato because the organic one looked nicer. It's always been because I don't want to die early because I've been consuming endocrine disruptors and other scary chemicals my whole life.
Interestingly, this study actually mentions that organic produce contains less pesticide residue (surprise!). But the/. article doesn't mention that—it just accentuates the positive. I would accuse/. of having been bought by the factory food industry, but I suspect that this is just another badly written/. article by someone who only read the first paragraph of TFA.
No, not at all. Whatever could you mean? It's a lush peach, right? Nom! Who cares if it's full of poison? What matters is the nutritional content, not whether eating it will kill you! Let's all sing the "accentuate the positive" song.
Actually, the study looks at both issues, and says that in fact organics do contain less pesticide residue. However, for some reason what's actually said in newspaper reports that link to the study is that "organics are no different." So don't blame Stanford for this—blame the reporters. If you ever thought the news was unbiased, this ought to give you some food for thought...
Yes. Organic food is not sprayed with pesticides. Hence, it contains no pesticide residue. That is why people buy organic food. That is the biochemical model. As to the nutritional content of organic food, that ought to depend on the vegetables being grown and the soil in which they are grown; the only reason a pesticide would change that would be if it were actually metabolized by the plant, which would be a really impressively bad thing. Although I guess weed killers actually are metabolized by the plant, so maybe it's not _that_ far-fetched. But I don't know of any studies that have been done on roundup-resistant veggies specifically, and I don't think the Stanford study mentions this issue.
Because if they'd linked to the Stanford site, they would have had to admit that this isn't actually what the study says. Yes, vegetables grown similarly with or without pesticides have similar nutritional content. Hardly shocking. But also, vegetables grown without pesticides don't have pesticide residue!!! Which is why people buy organic food. If you're buying organic because you want more vitamins, sure, switch back to your pesticide-laden foods instead.
How does Emacs work? How does Chrome work? How does Firefox work? How does Evolution work?
This is the problem—one thing works, another doesn't. I have to completely change how I interact with the computer, and give up on consistent key bindings. I had high hopes when I tried Unity, and they were very quickly dashed.
I used to use twm back in the day. But it works really poorly with most Gtk and Qt apps.
By "desktop" I mean the collective GUI that is presented by the system. I don't know if that's what's generally meant, but it seems reasonable. What I need to get work done is emacs, something that can edit word docs and doesn't suck (IOW, not OpenOffice), something that can show PDF files and doesn't suck (there are some possibilities here, but they all have issues), a decent web browser that doesn't have a subtly different set of key bindings than the rest of the tools I'm using, a mail reader/composer that doesn't utterly, painfully suck (unfortunately mh-e no longer cuts it because of MIME and because mail volumes are so high these days).
And these tools all have to work together. When I copy something to the clipboard in the browser, I should be able to paste it into emacs, and vice versa. All the text editing tools should have emacs key bindings (which means that they can't have Windows keyboard accelerators). The down arrow should do _exactly_ the same thing in all applications (if you are at the last line in the file, it should go to the end of the line, not beep at you). Etc.
I should be able to watch a video with sound. I should be able to close the lid on the laptop and have it go to sleep, and when I open the lid again, it should wake up, and not, say, crash, or come up in a wedged state that I can't recover from without sshing in and rebooting. The network should come up when the system boots, not when I log in, and logging in shouldn't cause it to be reconfigured (actually, this is a problem on MacOS too). The wifi subsystem shouldn't randomly switch between access points every thirty seconds without regard to which one has the best signal strength, when I am in an environment where there are multiple access points with the same SSID.
I could go on, and on, and on. There is so much brokenness that it crushes my enthusiasm for open source every time I try switching. I wind up talking to the computer, sometimes angrily, sometimes in pleading tones. It's not a good situation. That doesn't happen when I use MacOS. If Linux desktop people are serious about competing, they need to start doing so.
No, this is the exact opposite of what we need. Visual Studio is horrible to learn, and horrible to use. Pieces of it are good—a good visual debugger is critical, and a good text editor is critical. But UIs for making UIs tend to be clunky, and much more difficult to learn than they ought to be. There is a reason why HTML is so popular—it is a language for describing GUIs. It's not the best language, but it's good, and it works. The fact that you can type in some HTML, hit reload, and immediately see what your new GUI looks like is very powerful.
There are WYSIWYG HTML editors, but every good web design person I know hacks the HTML and CSS directly, and uses the browser's built-in debugging tools to find and fix problems. An IDE like Xcode or Visual Studio is never going to touch that ease of use, because they both rely on WYSIWYG GUI editors.
What is fundamentally wrong is that there are many toolkits, many APIs, and no consistency. There are several ways to do sound. There are several ways to remap the keyboard. Video drivers don't work reliably. Multimedia doesn't work reliably. Key bindings don't work reliably.
If you are willing to give up functionality and soldier through, it works well enough, but if you are at all a tweaker, or of you need cross-toolkit functionality, you are going to have to be very accepting of brokenness. Not everyone is willing to tolerate that. Because both Windows and Mac have a single UI, and a single set of APIs, many of the problems that you see on Linux simply don't happen on Mac or Windows.
This is actually why I favor switching to an Android desktop. It's sufficiently different, and has a sufficiently large application ecosphere, that the cross-UI problem can probably be eliminated.
Yes. This solves the multimedia hole nicely. Obviously there'd be some work involved in making this happen, but I agree that it's the best way forward.
That is in fact what Linux toolkits have done, and it was a bloody stupid move. Why would anybody bother to switch? The Linux desktop needs to be _better_, not _just as good_. Which it isn't—it's actually worse. Linux is much better overall, but most of the advantages aren't obvious to end users, so if the desktop doesn't wow them, they aren't going to switch.
I'm a Mac user. Linux desktops are bloody intolerable for me, because they mimic Window's crappy UI badly. They have hacks that in principle ought to allow me to simulate the Mac UI, but which in practice work so inconsistently that it's better not to use them. So every time I try to switch to Linux, I give up in disgust after a couple of weeks and switch back to MacOS, despite _really_ wanting to be running Linux instead of MacOS. I have to get work done—I can't spend all day screwing with a broken UI.
Of course, you are assuming that the judge will be knowledgable and unbiased. Judges who know what they are talking about on software patents are few and far between.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, it's time to learn how to set up DNS. Honest, it's not that hard. Your DHCP server can automatically update the DNS for you. Try it—you'll like it!
Holding a view that closely resembles materialism and calling yourself a Buddhist is like hoarding what you have, never helping anyone in need, and calling yourself a Christian. Of course you can do it, but why bother? At least calling yourself a Christian when you aren't one gets you some kind of social benefit—calling yourself a Buddhist when you aren't gets you no benefit at all.
Nail. Head. Bam.
Oh for heaven's sake. If you aren't a computer scientist (and the above statement demonstrates that you are not), don't make assertions about computer science. And if you aren't a mathematician, don't make assertions about math. "Math is continuous?" That's about as meaningful as saying "pink is ten." What you are talking about is a difference in notation. Look up lambda calculus on wikipedia, and get back to us when you've cleaned up the brain cells that dribbled out your ears when your brain exploded. Don't even get me started on type theory...
Those are farmers, not programmers. Programmers sacrifice chickens. Everybody knows that.
(FWIW, I'm a Buddhist, I never go to church, and one of the Buddhist courses I took back when I started was a course on logic and critical thinking, which as far as I was able to tell was pretty much the same system of logic that we use today. I think that contradicts pretty much all of the above wild-eyed assertions, but I'm sure someone will correct me, or else incorrectly state that Buddhism isn't a religion...)
Goody. Hard tomatoes that taste like fish. Can't wait.
My main concern about cocoa is not organic versus conventional, but slave versus fair. This is a really big problem, which makes me very reluctant to buy chocolate at all. The problem of fraud that you describe is real, and serious, but the answer is not to give up and just let the slavery continue.
True. I was being sarcastic. There are models, but I'm not an expert in the field, so I'm the wrong person to be presenting them to you.
There are lots of definitions of "organic," and the farming industry definitely wants your definition to be the one that's accepted, because that way they can charge a premium for nothing of value. But in fact this is not what most people who are serious about organic food mean when they say "organic." The way you deal with the bugs is either to come up with environmental solutions (e.g., plant your apples on a ridge line, so that it's windy) or by planting things nearby that either attract the insects away from your crop, or repel the insects. Monoculture is a great way to attract massive bug infestations; small organic farms with varied crops do better. But the bottom line is that you are going to lose some of your crop to bugs—there's no avoiding that if you are running an actual organic farm.
That's not what I read the study as saying—I didn't get the impression that it took a strong position on whether or not the pesticides were safe. But in fact I tend to agree with your position here, in the sense that the reason I actually don't like to buy conventional food is because of the introduction of pesticides in the ground water, and exposure to pesticides for farm workers.
The question is whether it shows up in our fat cells and in women's breast milk.
You know, I've been buying organic food for over thirty years now, and I can't think of a single time when I've picked an organic tomato over a conventional tomato because the organic one looked nicer. It's always been because I don't want to die early because I've been consuming endocrine disruptors and other scary chemicals my whole life.
Interestingly, this study actually mentions that organic produce contains less pesticide residue (surprise!). But the /. article doesn't mention that—it just accentuates the positive. I would accuse /. of having been bought by the factory food industry, but I suspect that this is just another badly written /. article by someone who only read the first paragraph of TFA.
Sigh.
No, not at all. Whatever could you mean? It's a lush peach, right? Nom! Who cares if it's full of poison? What matters is the nutritional content, not whether eating it will kill you! Let's all sing the "accentuate the positive" song.
Actually, the study looks at both issues, and says that in fact organics do contain less pesticide residue. However, for some reason what's actually said in newspaper reports that link to the study is that "organics are no different." So don't blame Stanford for this—blame the reporters. If you ever thought the news was unbiased, this ought to give you some food for thought...
Yes. Organic food is not sprayed with pesticides. Hence, it contains no pesticide residue. That is why people buy organic food. That is the biochemical model. As to the nutritional content of organic food, that ought to depend on the vegetables being grown and the soil in which they are grown; the only reason a pesticide would change that would be if it were actually metabolized by the plant, which would be a really impressively bad thing. Although I guess weed killers actually are metabolized by the plant, so maybe it's not _that_ far-fetched. But I don't know of any studies that have been done on roundup-resistant veggies specifically, and I don't think the Stanford study mentions this issue.
Because if they'd linked to the Stanford site, they would have had to admit that this isn't actually what the study says. Yes, vegetables grown similarly with or without pesticides have similar nutritional content. Hardly shocking. But also, vegetables grown without pesticides don't have pesticide residue!!! Which is why people buy organic food. If you're buying organic because you want more vitamins, sure, switch back to your pesticide-laden foods instead.
How does Emacs work? How does Chrome work? How does Firefox work? How does Evolution work?
This is the problem—one thing works, another doesn't. I have to completely change how I interact with the computer, and give up on consistent key bindings. I had high hopes when I tried Unity, and they were very quickly dashed.
I used to use twm back in the day. But it works really poorly with most Gtk and Qt apps.
By "desktop" I mean the collective GUI that is presented by the system. I don't know if that's what's generally meant, but it seems reasonable. What I need to get work done is emacs, something that can edit word docs and doesn't suck (IOW, not OpenOffice), something that can show PDF files and doesn't suck (there are some possibilities here, but they all have issues), a decent web browser that doesn't have a subtly different set of key bindings than the rest of the tools I'm using, a mail reader/composer that doesn't utterly, painfully suck (unfortunately mh-e no longer cuts it because of MIME and because mail volumes are so high these days).
And these tools all have to work together. When I copy something to the clipboard in the browser, I should be able to paste it into emacs, and vice versa. All the text editing tools should have emacs key bindings (which means that they can't have Windows keyboard accelerators). The down arrow should do _exactly_ the same thing in all applications (if you are at the last line in the file, it should go to the end of the line, not beep at you). Etc.
I should be able to watch a video with sound. I should be able to close the lid on the laptop and have it go to sleep, and when I open the lid again, it should wake up, and not, say, crash, or come up in a wedged state that I can't recover from without sshing in and rebooting. The network should come up when the system boots, not when I log in, and logging in shouldn't cause it to be reconfigured (actually, this is a problem on MacOS too). The wifi subsystem shouldn't randomly switch between access points every thirty seconds without regard to which one has the best signal strength, when I am in an environment where there are multiple access points with the same SSID.
I could go on, and on, and on. There is so much brokenness that it crushes my enthusiasm for open source every time I try switching. I wind up talking to the computer, sometimes angrily, sometimes in pleading tones. It's not a good situation. That doesn't happen when I use MacOS. If Linux desktop people are serious about competing, they need to start doing so.
No, this is the exact opposite of what we need. Visual Studio is horrible to learn, and horrible to use. Pieces of it are good—a good visual debugger is critical, and a good text editor is critical. But UIs for making UIs tend to be clunky, and much more difficult to learn than they ought to be. There is a reason why HTML is so popular—it is a language for describing GUIs. It's not the best language, but it's good, and it works. The fact that you can type in some HTML, hit reload, and immediately see what your new GUI looks like is very powerful.
There are WYSIWYG HTML editors, but every good web design person I know hacks the HTML and CSS directly, and uses the browser's built-in debugging tools to find and fix problems. An IDE like Xcode or Visual Studio is never going to touch that ease of use, because they both rely on WYSIWYG GUI editors.
What is fundamentally wrong is that there are many toolkits, many APIs, and no consistency. There are several ways to do sound. There are several ways to remap the keyboard. Video drivers don't work reliably. Multimedia doesn't work reliably. Key bindings don't work reliably.
If you are willing to give up functionality and soldier through, it works well enough, but if you are at all a tweaker, or of you need cross-toolkit functionality, you are going to have to be very accepting of brokenness. Not everyone is willing to tolerate that. Because both Windows and Mac have a single UI, and a single set of APIs, many of the problems that you see on Linux simply don't happen on Mac or Windows.
This is actually why I favor switching to an Android desktop. It's sufficiently different, and has a sufficiently large application ecosphere, that the cross-UI problem can probably be eliminated.
Yes. This solves the multimedia hole nicely. Obviously there'd be some work involved in making this happen, but I agree that it's the best way forward.
That is in fact what Linux toolkits have done, and it was a bloody stupid move. Why would anybody bother to switch? The Linux desktop needs to be _better_, not _just as good_. Which it isn't—it's actually worse. Linux is much better overall, but most of the advantages aren't obvious to end users, so if the desktop doesn't wow them, they aren't going to switch.
I'm a Mac user. Linux desktops are bloody intolerable for me, because they mimic Window's crappy UI badly. They have hacks that in principle ought to allow me to simulate the Mac UI, but which in practice work so inconsistently that it's better not to use them. So every time I try to switch to Linux, I give up in disgust after a couple of weeks and switch back to MacOS, despite _really_ wanting to be running Linux instead of MacOS. I have to get work done—I can't spend all day screwing with a broken UI.
Okay, I'll bite. What army deposed the German Democratic Republic?
Think carefully before you answer—it's a trick question.
Of course, you are assuming that the judge will be knowledgable and unbiased. Judges who know what they are talking about on software patents are few and far between.
This assumes that Apple actually pays taxes, which is by no means guaranteed.