Yes. If you think about it, this is the best way to add "features"--faster javascript means more complex code can be written and run in browsers; including both web pages and extensions.
You know, it's not a good idea to base what you think of a large and diverse scientific research program on a single article linked to from slashdot.
I don't know how this research links in to larger questions in psychology, and I bet you don't either.
No matter how much an entity promises not to turn over your private information, they can not and will not take that responsibility as seriously as you would.
Depends who "you" are. Most people just don't care that much, and are pretty insecure in the way they run their computers.
I would hazard a guess that most people would be better off having their data stored on (back up, properly patched) servers, than store it themselves.
The way people went for web-based email suggests that they don't give a shit where their data is stored, as long as they can get it. Not that they really think about it, but their data is probably safer (from accidental loss) with a big service provider than on a local disk they don't back up (yes, most people still don't back up). I think your argument hold true for nerds and certain power-users, but that's not the majority of the market.
I don't think installers are the problem at all. The add/remove applications in Ubuntu blows away OS X and Windows with ease of use. I can't think of something that would be faster or more user friendly.
If anything, the application manager is the killer app (for Ubuntu at least). No, what's holding Linux back is the lack of certain "must have" applications. The biggies to me are iTunes (and iTunes store), and lack of professional-grade design software. I, for one, would switch from Mac to Linux if I could do something with the vast amount of my output invested in PSD and AI files.
Mac OS also does have a more refined interface than any Linus distro I've seen, but I don't think that's holding people back (it would annoy me if I switched though).
Rigghhht... because if you don't need it, nobody does, right? Seriously, this is a big deal for some people. Cash-strapped graphic designers as artists for one (yes, unfortunately we do need Adobe software). It's very frustrating.
PPCs have always seemed to me to be pretty efficient. My 1Ghz G4 is substantially faster and more responsive than the 2.8GHz Celeron I used to test stuff in IE. I think it's a shame they've been dropped.
As an artist, I think the two are virtually unconnected, drawing skill and writing skills seem to come from a different part of my brain (I wonder if there are any studies on this). If I slow right down I can write in beautiful fonts, because I am essentially drawing the letters, but my normal handwriting is so bad even I can't read it.
I have no mod points, but that is one of the most insightful (you hear that mods, INSIGHTFUL) comments I've seen on slashdot. It applies to an awful lot of human interactions.
It still sucks. Centering things is a pain in the arse--why do we have to use stupid hacks like negative margins? It's on of the most common things you might want to do with layout. How about vertical alignment? Also stupidly complicated involving hacks. Columns? Who'd a thought anyone would want a simple way to do that? And how about positioning?
- "Fixed" = STATIC, doesn't move
- "Absolute" = RELATIVE to the (positioned(!)) containing element.
- "Relative" = OFFSET from the flow.
- "Static" = in flow.
The should be "static", "relative", "offset", and "inflow", respectively.
And don't get me started on floats. Holy crap what a nightmare.
CSS was an okay idea, but it's implementation could have been much, much better. And no one's ever made a decent visual tool to create it either--which is especially irritating because it's (mostly) about visual styling.
I think allowing popups, or indeed letting pages control window size, position or arrangement at all was a colossal blunder. It's completely unnecessary today. I say remove it.
Or, to maintain some sort of backward compatibility, have new windows appear within the bounds of the original. Pages should only control their own space, not control my browser.
Anecdotal reports like this might be fine for pointing the direction of new research, but they shouldn't be part of the research methodology itself. Scientific studies should (and generally do) uphold a minimum standard of methodology. Something is not better than nothing, otherwise all sort of crazy anecdotal stuff would get into the scientific literature (alien abductions, Jesus on tortillas, etc.), which would be disastrous.
I'm not a psychologist, but I don't think I'd let a study done with that methodology through peer review. It's way too susceptible to confirmation bias on the part of the police. Traffic cameras would be much better.
It's a simple fix, and also a stupid one. This would cripple the internet, and make people furious with their ISPs (I, for one, would immediately switch providers if they blocked my access under such a pretext). ISPs that did not take such action would gain a huge market share, and you'd be back where you started.
And, seriously, the internet works: the web works, email works--we don't need draconian measures to stop botnets. They're the cost of doing business.
I don't know the situation in the US, but psychOLOGISTS don't prescribe medication, psychIATRISTS do. There is a huge difference in the training and cultures of the two disciplines, and it's a real shame a lot of people seem to use the terms interchangeably. Psychiatry tends toward the traditional medic model of being authoritative with patients, whereas psychologists use a different model of working with clients/patients. Psychiatrists also seem to have picked up Freudian psychoanalysis, whereas psychologists (and most philosophers of science) generally regard psychoanalysis as pseudoscience.
"Darwinism" is a word mostly used by creationists (are you one trying to sound like you're not?)--it isn't a particularly accurate term. Consider using "evolutionary biology" instead, because it takes into account non-darwinian processes.
There aren't a lot of jobs where you need to know much Relativity or Quantum Physics either, but the erosion of basic science (in this case the unifying theory of biology) will have consequences down the line.
Before you blame scientists for vigorously defending evolutionary biology, consider that no other scientific theory has come under such prolonged and intense a political attack, yet been so uncontroversial among scientists. If it were Relativity or the Germ Theory of disease, I'm sure you'd see the same sort of reaction.
Actually, I thin the removal of the last bit of supporting evidence for God does pretty much lead to a (kind of) atheism. For example, if the theory of General Relativity were slowly eroded, until there was no supporting evidence at all, it would be abandoned. Dawkins would argue God is in the same category.
Oh come on, Stein is rehashing the same old tired points, which have been rebutted ad-infinitum by the scientific community. Evolution sure does explain "how you get from paramecium to human". ALL the evidence supports this conclusion. The law/theory argument is so hackneyed I can't believe people aren't embarrassed about making it.
This is just yet another maneuver to get creationism into science classes, and everybody knows it. Creationsim isn't science people. Time to deal with that fact.
The point of the eee is, I think, that a lot of people simply don't need the power most laptops come with. Also, it fits in a handbag (or purse, if you're American)--that's a big deal.
By the way, I think it's actually pretty robust, I've dropped my girlfriend's eee twice (I use it because I find my 12" powerbook (!) too big and clunky for actual laptop use), with no ill effects.
He is the most prolific living palaeontologist - and publishes an order of magnitude (in the true sense) more papers than any other person I can think of. That should ring alarm bells.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. If you think about it, this is the best way to add "features"--faster javascript means more complex code can be written and run in browsers; including both web pages and extensions.
You know, it's not a good idea to base what you think of a large and diverse scientific research program on a single article linked to from slashdot. I don't know how this research links in to larger questions in psychology, and I bet you don't either.
No matter how much an entity promises not to turn over your private information, they can not and will not take that responsibility as seriously as you would.
Depends who "you" are. Most people just don't care that much, and are pretty insecure in the way they run their computers.
I would hazard a guess that most people would be better off having their data stored on (back up, properly patched) servers, than store it themselves.
The way people went for web-based email suggests that they don't give a shit where their data is stored, as long as they can get it. Not that they really think about it, but their data is probably safer (from accidental loss) with a big service provider than on a local disk they don't back up (yes, most people still don't back up). I think your argument hold true for nerds and certain power-users, but that's not the majority of the market.
I don't think installers are the problem at all. The add/remove applications in Ubuntu blows away OS X and Windows with ease of use. I can't think of something that would be faster or more user friendly.
If anything, the application manager is the killer app (for Ubuntu at least). No, what's holding Linux back is the lack of certain "must have" applications. The biggies to me are iTunes (and iTunes store), and lack of professional-grade design software. I, for one, would switch from Mac to Linux if I could do something with the vast amount of my output invested in PSD and AI files.
Mac OS also does have a more refined interface than any Linus distro I've seen, but I don't think that's holding people back (it would annoy me if I switched though).
Rigghhht... because if you don't need it, nobody does, right? Seriously, this is a big deal for some people. Cash-strapped graphic designers as artists for one (yes, unfortunately we do need Adobe software). It's very frustrating.
PPCs have always seemed to me to be pretty efficient. My 1Ghz G4 is substantially faster and more responsive than the 2.8GHz Celeron I used to test stuff in IE. I think it's a shame they've been dropped.
As an artist, I think the two are virtually unconnected, drawing skill and writing skills seem to come from a different part of my brain (I wonder if there are any studies on this). If I slow right down I can write in beautiful fonts, because I am essentially drawing the letters, but my normal handwriting is so bad even I can't read it.
I have no mod points, but that is one of the most insightful (you hear that mods, INSIGHTFUL) comments I've seen on slashdot. It applies to an awful lot of human interactions.
It still sucks. Centering things is a pain in the arse--why do we have to use stupid hacks like negative margins? It's on of the most common things you might want to do with layout. How about vertical alignment? Also stupidly complicated involving hacks. Columns? Who'd a thought anyone would want a simple way to do that? And how about positioning?
- "Fixed" = STATIC, doesn't move
- "Absolute" = RELATIVE to the (positioned(!)) containing element.
- "Relative" = OFFSET from the flow.
- "Static" = in flow.
The should be "static", "relative", "offset", and "inflow", respectively.
And don't get me started on floats. Holy crap what a nightmare.
CSS was an okay idea, but it's implementation could have been much, much better. And no one's ever made a decent visual tool to create it either--which is especially irritating because it's (mostly) about visual styling.
I think allowing popups, or indeed letting pages control window size, position or arrangement at all was a colossal blunder. It's completely unnecessary today. I say remove it. Or, to maintain some sort of backward compatibility, have new windows appear within the bounds of the original. Pages should only control their own space, not control my browser.
Anecdotal reports like this might be fine for pointing the direction of new research, but they shouldn't be part of the research methodology itself. Scientific studies should (and generally do) uphold a minimum standard of methodology. Something is not better than nothing, otherwise all sort of crazy anecdotal stuff would get into the scientific literature (alien abductions, Jesus on tortillas, etc.), which would be disastrous.
I'm not a psychologist, but I don't think I'd let a study done with that methodology through peer review. It's way too susceptible to confirmation bias on the part of the police. Traffic cameras would be much better.
It's a simple fix, and also a stupid one. This would cripple the internet, and make people furious with their ISPs (I, for one, would immediately switch providers if they blocked my access under such a pretext). ISPs that did not take such action would gain a huge market share, and you'd be back where you started.
And, seriously, the internet works: the web works, email works--we don't need draconian measures to stop botnets. They're the cost of doing business.
I don't know the situation in the US, but psychOLOGISTS don't prescribe medication, psychIATRISTS do. There is a huge difference in the training and cultures of the two disciplines, and it's a real shame a lot of people seem to use the terms interchangeably. Psychiatry tends toward the traditional medic model of being authoritative with patients, whereas psychologists use a different model of working with clients/patients. Psychiatrists also seem to have picked up Freudian psychoanalysis, whereas psychologists (and most philosophers of science) generally regard psychoanalysis as pseudoscience.
"Darwinism" is a word mostly used by creationists (are you one trying to sound like you're not?)--it isn't a particularly accurate term. Consider using "evolutionary biology" instead, because it takes into account non-darwinian processes.
There aren't a lot of jobs where you need to know much Relativity or Quantum Physics either, but the erosion of basic science (in this case the unifying theory of biology) will have consequences down the line.
Before you blame scientists for vigorously defending evolutionary biology, consider that no other scientific theory has come under such prolonged and intense a political attack, yet been so uncontroversial among scientists. If it were Relativity or the Germ Theory of disease, I'm sure you'd see the same sort of reaction.
Actually, I thin the removal of the last bit of supporting evidence for God does pretty much lead to a (kind of) atheism. For example, if the theory of General Relativity were slowly eroded, until there was no supporting evidence at all, it would be abandoned. Dawkins would argue God is in the same category.
Oh come on, Stein is rehashing the same old tired points, which have been rebutted ad-infinitum by the scientific community. Evolution sure does explain "how you get from paramecium to human". ALL the evidence supports this conclusion. The law/theory argument is so hackneyed I can't believe people aren't embarrassed about making it. This is just yet another maneuver to get creationism into science classes, and everybody knows it. Creationsim isn't science people. Time to deal with that fact.
The point of the eee is, I think, that a lot of people simply don't need the power most laptops come with. Also, it fits in a handbag (or purse, if you're American)--that's a big deal.
By the way, I think it's actually pretty robust, I've dropped my girlfriend's eee twice (I use it because I find my 12" powerbook (!) too big and clunky for actual laptop use), with no ill effects.
Well, to be fair, after hippos, cows are as close as you get.
These are really slick: http://www.takebacktheweb.org/
He is the most prolific living palaeontologist - and publishes an order of magnitude (in the true sense) more papers than any other person I can think of. That should ring alarm bells.
Good luck, he's "authored" over 1000 papers! Yes, that's one THOUSAND: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/01/aetosaurs_and_whistle-blowing.php
I believe that's in the ethical guidelines. I don't think that's grounds for revoking the name... unfortunately.
Yes. Broken with dogma and brought the church into the modern age.