Thanks for the info. However, Joomla is up to version 3.x now, and I'm pretty sure the restrictions you saw in 1.5 no longer apply. E.g., core Joomla allows grouping users and defining their permissions.
Seriously, though: aren't WordPress, Joomla, and Drupal the three free open source CMSs? I think Joomla is far more powerful than WordPress in many ways, avoids at least some of the failings of WordPress listed by the OP, and is easier to use than Drupal. I'd like to hear what you and others have to say about the three of them.
I remember an old story in which someone at one of those bases would periodically stand between the two launch keys, which are intentionally placed far apart so that it takes two people to turn them simultaneously, and try to stretch his arms far enough so that he could launch the missile. Anybody remember what that story was?
That book is not going to support your argument, and you know it.
The point is not that taxation is bad, but that corrupt systems of taxation are bad
There is a fuckton of a difference between a high taxation and a corrupt taxation regime.
Wow, way to move the goalposts and accuse me of a bad faith argument, while selectively quoting an Amazon review of a book you have clearly not read. The full sentence you selectively quote is:
The point is not that taxation is bad, but that corrupt systems of taxation are bad and that taxation above a certain level is bound to fail since people will find ways to avoid it. [Emphasis added]
Unlike you, I have read the book. Yes, he talks about corrupt tax systems (e.g. the use of independent "tax farmers" to collect revenue). But no, it's not simply about corruption, and documents many instances of high tax systems being bad. E.g., Crete was a major Mediterranean power that derived a great deal of revenue from taxing traders. Then the relative backwater of Rome offered duty-free ports, traders preferred that, and Rome rose while Crete fell. Hundreds of years later, the Roman empire was huge and taxes were high. When barbarian invaders came from the North, many communities did not resist, because at least their taxes would be lower. Part of the early spread of Islam happened similarly: the Muslims promised lower taxes for conversion, so rather than fight or pay extra tax as Christians, they converted.
that's what the USA does. most of our oil is from right here and canada
In the USA, landowners generally own the subsurface mineral rights to their land, but in Europe, often it's the government that owns those rights. This makes it easier to stop oil or gas projects than to start them.
– Make a list of all chores that need to be done every week.
– Agree on a point value for each one, with more points for longer or less pleasant chores.
– Divide the total points by the number of roommates, so everyone has X points to do per week.
The real genius of the system then comes in: whoever does their chores first gets to pick which ones to do, and whoever puts it off until the end has to do whatever's left. So there's a built-in incentive to do chores early, and no squabbling, because everyone agreed to the point rankings ahead of time.
Thank you for that explanation, which got me thinking: Apple Pay could remake the web, in some very good ways. Just expand Apple Pay into the micropayment system I've wanted for over 15 years.
If Apple can "scale this down" (even by losing some money on overhead and transaction costs) and make it painless and worthwhile for a website to charge as little as one cent for something, then many good things happen. I think a vast number of web users would happily click a "1 Cent Apple Pay" button to read the second half of an article or column, or hear a song or a podcast, or watch a funny cat video. If it's good, it's worth one cent. If it wasn't, it was only a penny.
Or think of it as $10 for every 1000 articles read/artworks viewed/songs heard: a trivial expense for weeks or months of web usage for most people, in exchange for the content without registrations, or subscriptions, or pay walls, and without advertising. You know, that annoying stuff you try to block. That stuff that Google sells. (Oh-oh...!)
But this would be much more than a way to drop a pipeline into Google's core revenue source. Creatives and publishers and entrepreneurs of all sorts could just add Apple Pay to a page like a social media button, and then sell or rent their work directly and affordably. One cent transactions may only add up to just a few dollars for some, but what are they making now? Web ads bring them little. Maybe they're happy selling songs for $1, but they might be thrilled by the number of people willing to pay one cent to listen to one song, once.
And it could scale up really well. Charities and activists could raise real money in tiny, painless increments. Even one cent per page view adds up to a big chunk of change for newspapers and magazines that now struggle to survive on advertising and/or subscriptions. I think the New York Times website would be thrilled if their 17 million page views a day made them one cent each: that's over $62 million a year. Or maybe some big players get "greedy," and decide to charge a whole five cents for that big story, or virtual art show, or for your first listen to that new song from your favorite band: a million nickels is $50,000.
Now think of ebook sellers who don't need Amazon any more. Think about PayPal, and streaming music services. And why not Bitcoin via Apple Pay....
I'm sure some of you will see this as a dystopian vision, but I think Apple could do a lot of good and (eventually) make a lot of money with my distributed digital free market daydream.
Politicians often discover that when the issue they wish to move forward is resisted by their peers, they can appeal directly to the public. Explain their plan and encourage input from everyone. If they build enough support among the voters, then their peers may be forced to support the plan as well.
Absolutely true.
Kalil may or may not have support from the White House or anyone, but if he gets a big response to this challenge Obama and others will have to reconsider their reluctance.
Now you're not being cynical enough. I think this challenge is likely to be the result of a direct White House request to come up with some good "news for nerds." I don't think it's a coincidence that we are weeks from an election that Democrats are dreading (publicly or not). It's aimed at a core voting/donating demographic that largely supported Obama but now is ticked off about the NSA, the IRS, government transparency, the Middle East, and a bunch of other things. There's no commitment, it costs little, there's little risk of a downside, and it's even legal and ethical. It's a small but perfect election-season ploy.
But regardless of the political motivation and the odds against a real project resulting from it, I'm still in favor, for all the standard nerd reasons.
Since there are about 4-5,000 workplace fatalities a year, virtually all of them preventable, that's a good return for the money. [...] So if CDC doesn't do this stuff, nobody will.
Why is this a problem? Research should always be done, however ridiculous your hypothesis may be. The freedom to do such insane research is what has made USA the leader of all sciences.
Of course research is generally good, but priorities must be decided. Right now, I suspect people would rather that money had been spent researching Ebola.
What exactly is the point of this odd half-assed sort of category, a "no-fly list"? If the federal government suspects a citizen or resident might be a terrorist, OK, then get a friggin' warrant and bug their phone and search their house and get some real evidence. Since terrorists can do a lot more than hijack airplanes, what's the message here? "We want to prevent you from hijacking an airliner, but a bus is OK?" Either treat them like a suspected terrorist, or just stop hassling them.
Google's approach to this is reasonable. Criminals and public officials voluntarily give up a level of privacy due to their voluntary status as criminals and public officials.
I agree, but I dislike this whole "right to be forgotten" thing. Yes, for some people it sucks to have bad/old information on the internet, but in effect what's happening here is various people demanding censorship of information about themselves, and then Google deciding whether or not to comply. Are we sure we know what their standards are, and that they will be applied fairly? The opportunities for bias are obvious: will a request to remove (say) an old bit of dirt on someone associated with a cause or political party that Google likes will be treated the same way as dirt on someone associated with a cause or political party that Google doesn't like?
Plus, there's a slippery slope. Now that politicians know they can force Google to censor results, why not expand that for "the good of society"? How long before some politician decides that Google users shouldn't be able to search for things deemed to be "racist" or "sexist" or "hate speech" or "climate denial" or whatever?
There is a risk that HIV can spread orally to someone with gingivitis (bleeding gums), and I wonder if the jump from bush meat to humans in 1920s might have happened when someone with gingivitis ate some bloody bush meat.
As a species, we've been eating meat for a long, long time, and our digestive and immune systems have proven well-adapted to the preventing of cross-species viral contamination through that means.
What was the dental hygiene like in Kinshasa in the 1920s? Might not there have been some people with gingivitis (bleeding gums) who ate some bushmeat that was a bit rare/bloody?
Except that this is not true. Biology has not radically changed in the last few decades, yet the number of women wanting to enter engineering, math, or computing programs at school as dropped by a very large amount.
I'm not sure what you are saying is "not true," because what you say supports my point: nobody thinks discrimination against women in tech has increased in recent decades, so this is more likely to be the result of a bunch of individual decisions.
Now I could be persuaded that there might not be a problem, as you seem to imply, if you could show that all of these women are getting jobs that pay as much as the CS oriented jobs do.
Why must they get jobs that pay as much as the CS oriented jobs do? Maybe they'd rather have different jobs that pay less. Maybe they'd rather have kids and stay home. As long as they are making free choices, let them do what they want, and don't obsess over "inequalities" and "lack of diversity" that are purely statistical
and based on a false conception of how humans behave.
Early Ebola symptoms are things like "headache, muscle pain, weakness, stomach pain" - basically, it looks like the flu.
But he had just arrived from an Ebola zone.
Dude shows up at the hospital, is like "guys I feel kinda sick," they give him the standard treatment "take 2 and call me in the morning." Given that he lied about his risk factors on the travel documentation, I doubt he told the full truth at the hospital.
He did tell some people at the hospital he had just arrived from Liberia, but apparently everyone there didn't get the word.
In the meantime, workers clean up the vomit on the sidewalk, because that's what you do with vomit on the sidewalk.
You don't clean up Ebola-victim vomit by pressure-washing it, especially without a Hazmat suit, because one droplet landing on a mucus membrane can give you Ebola.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info. However, Joomla is up to version 3.x now, and I'm pretty sure the restrictions you saw in 1.5 no longer apply. E.g., core Joomla allows grouping users and defining their permissions.
Seriously, though: aren't WordPress, Joomla, and Drupal the three free open source CMSs? I think Joomla is far more powerful than WordPress in many ways, avoids at least some of the failings of WordPress listed by the OP, and is easier to use than Drupal. I'd like to hear what you and others have to say about the three of them.
No love for Joomla?
Won't something think of the Moon?!
How about "Fedora"?
Are you thinking of "Game" by Donald Barthleme?
I think that was it, yes. Thanks!
I remember an old story in which someone at one of those bases would periodically stand between the two launch keys, which are intentionally placed far apart so that it takes two people to turn them simultaneously, and try to stretch his arms far enough so that he could launch the missile. Anybody remember what that story was?
That book is not going to support your argument, and you know it.
The point is not that taxation is bad, but that corrupt systems of taxation are bad
There is a fuckton of a difference between a high taxation and a corrupt taxation regime.
Wow, way to move the goalposts and accuse me of a bad faith argument, while selectively quoting an Amazon review of a book you have clearly not read. The full sentence you selectively quote is:
Unlike you, I have read the book. Yes, he talks about corrupt tax systems (e.g. the use of independent "tax farmers" to collect revenue). But no, it's not simply about corruption, and documents many instances of high tax systems being bad. E.g., Crete was a major Mediterranean power that derived a great deal of revenue from taxing traders. Then the relative backwater of Rome offered duty-free ports, traders preferred that, and Rome rose while Crete fell. Hundreds of years later, the Roman empire was huge and taxes were high. When barbarian invaders came from the North, many communities did not resist, because at least their taxes would be lower. Part of the early spread of Islam happened similarly: the Muslims promised lower taxes for conversion, so rather than fight or pay extra tax as Christians, they converted.
High taxation as a cause of the fall of civilization is a myth.
Not a myth at all. True, it's not a certainty, but high taxes have often caused societies to fall to civil wars, outside invaders, or simply to decline relative to lower-taxing societies. I highly recommend For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization by Charles Adams for an overview of this.
that's what the USA does. most of our oil is from right here and canada
In the USA, landowners generally own the subsurface mineral rights to their land, but in Europe, often it's the government that owns those rights. This makes it easier to stop oil or gas projects than to start them.
We did this back in college, and it worked great.
The real genius of the system then comes in: whoever does their chores first gets to pick which ones to do, and whoever puts it off until the end has to do whatever's left. So there's a built-in incentive to do chores early, and no squabbling, because everyone agreed to the point rankings ahead of time.
Seriously, Apple sold 5.5 million intel-pc's.... It's nothing on total pc sales.
It's enough to put them in the top five PC makers, worldwide. If you count iPads as computers, Apple is the largest computer manufacturer in the world with a 14% share.
Thank you for that explanation, which got me thinking: Apple Pay could remake the web, in some very good ways. Just expand Apple Pay into the micropayment system I've wanted for over 15 years.
If Apple can "scale this down" (even by losing some money on overhead and transaction costs) and make it painless and worthwhile for a website to charge as little as one cent for something, then many good things happen. I think a vast number of web users would happily click a "1 Cent Apple Pay" button to read the second half of an article or column, or hear a song or a podcast, or watch a funny cat video. If it's good, it's worth one cent. If it wasn't, it was only a penny.
Or think of it as $10 for every 1000 articles read/artworks viewed/songs heard: a trivial expense for weeks or months of web usage for most people, in exchange for the content without registrations, or subscriptions, or pay walls, and without advertising. You know, that annoying stuff you try to block. That stuff that Google sells. (Oh-oh...!)
But this would be much more than a way to drop a pipeline into Google's core revenue source. Creatives and publishers and entrepreneurs of all sorts could just add Apple Pay to a page like a social media button, and then sell or rent their work directly and affordably. One cent transactions may only add up to just a few dollars for some, but what are they making now? Web ads bring them little. Maybe they're happy selling songs for $1, but they might be thrilled by the number of people willing to pay one cent to listen to one song, once.
And it could scale up really well. Charities and activists could raise real money in tiny, painless increments. Even one cent per page view adds up to a big chunk of change for newspapers and magazines that now struggle to survive on advertising and/or subscriptions. I think the New York Times website would be thrilled if their 17 million page views a day made them one cent each: that's over $62 million a year. Or maybe some big players get "greedy," and decide to charge a whole five cents for that big story, or virtual art show, or for your first listen to that new song from your favorite band: a million nickels is $50,000.
Now think of ebook sellers who don't need Amazon any more. Think about PayPal, and streaming music services. And why not Bitcoin via Apple Pay....
I'm sure some of you will see this as a dystopian vision, but I think Apple could do a lot of good and (eventually) make a lot of money with my distributed digital free market daydream.
Politicians often discover that when the issue they wish to move forward is resisted by their peers, they can appeal directly to the public. Explain their plan and encourage input from everyone. If they build enough support among the voters, then their peers may be forced to support the plan as well.
Absolutely true.
Kalil may or may not have support from the White House or anyone, but if he gets a big response to this challenge Obama and others will have to reconsider their reluctance.
Now you're not being cynical enough. I think this challenge is likely to be the result of a direct White House request to come up with some good "news for nerds." I don't think it's a coincidence that we are weeks from an election that Democrats are dreading (publicly or not). It's aimed at a core voting/donating demographic that largely supported Obama but now is ticked off about the NSA, the IRS, government transparency, the Middle East, and a bunch of other things. There's no commitment, it costs little, there's little risk of a downside, and it's even legal and ethical. It's a small but perfect election-season ploy.
But regardless of the political motivation and the odds against a real project resulting from it, I'm still in favor, for all the standard nerd reasons.
Since there are about 4-5,000 workplace fatalities a year, virtually all of them preventable, that's a good return for the money. [...] So if CDC doesn't do this stuff, nobody will.
Then what is OSHA for?
Why is this a problem? Research should always be done, however ridiculous your hypothesis may be. The freedom to do such insane research is what has made USA the leader of all sciences.
Of course research is generally good, but priorities must be decided. Right now, I suspect people would rather that money had been spent researching Ebola.
The USA has handled many epidemics in the past. The experience of Western Samoa vs. American Samoa during the Spanish Flu epidemic is an interesting example. The TL;DR: version: Western Samoa decided they couldn't stopping the importation of plantation laborers, and as a result 20-25% of the population died. American Samoa self-quarantined, and nobody died.
One of the core problems today is that the CDC has lost focus, and instead of controlling infectious disease, they spend money things like playground safety, workplace accidents, guns, and birth defects. And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese.
We don't need to change the Constitution, just the spending and research priorities of a bunch of bureaucracies.
What exactly is the point of this odd half-assed sort of category, a "no-fly list"? If the federal government suspects a citizen or resident might be a terrorist, OK, then get a friggin' warrant and bug their phone and search their house and get some real evidence. Since terrorists can do a lot more than hijack airplanes, what's the message here? "We want to prevent you from hijacking an airliner, but a bus is OK?" Either treat them like a suspected terrorist, or just stop hassling them.
Google's approach to this is reasonable. Criminals and public officials voluntarily give up a level of privacy due to their voluntary status as criminals and public officials.
I agree, but I dislike this whole "right to be forgotten" thing. Yes, for some people it sucks to have bad/old information on the internet, but in effect what's happening here is various people demanding censorship of information about themselves, and then Google deciding whether or not to comply. Are we sure we know what their standards are, and that they will be applied fairly? The opportunities for bias are obvious: will a request to remove (say) an old bit of dirt on someone associated with a cause or political party that Google likes will be treated the same way as dirt on someone associated with a cause or political party that Google doesn't like?
Plus, there's a slippery slope. Now that politicians know they can force Google to censor results, why not expand that for "the good of society"? How long before some politician decides that Google users shouldn't be able to search for things deemed to be "racist" or "sexist" or "hate speech" or "climate denial" or whatever?
There is a risk that HIV can spread orally to someone with gingivitis (bleeding gums), and I wonder if the jump from bush meat to humans in 1920s might have happened when someone with gingivitis ate some bloody bush meat.
As a species, we've been eating meat for a long, long time, and our digestive and immune systems have proven well-adapted to the preventing of cross-species viral contamination through that means.
What was the dental hygiene like in Kinshasa in the 1920s? Might not there have been some people with gingivitis (bleeding gums) who ate some bushmeat that was a bit rare/bloody?
Ah, well if so, that's true negligence on the part of the hospital/medical authorities.
Yeah, that's part of it, but the part I am talking about is the part that says "You cannot understand my experience because it's so different."
Except that this is not true. Biology has not radically changed in the last few decades, yet the number of women wanting to enter engineering, math, or computing programs at school as dropped by a very large amount.
I'm not sure what you are saying is "not true," because what you say supports my point: nobody thinks discrimination against women in tech has increased in recent decades, so this is more likely to be the result of a bunch of individual decisions.
Now I could be persuaded that there might not be a problem, as you seem to imply, if you could show that all of these women are getting jobs that pay as much as the CS oriented jobs do.
Why must they get jobs that pay as much as the CS oriented jobs do? Maybe they'd rather have different jobs that pay less. Maybe they'd rather have kids and stay home. As long as they are making free choices, let them do what they want, and don't obsess over "inequalities" and "lack of diversity" that are purely statistical and based on a false conception of how humans behave.
Early Ebola symptoms are things like "headache, muscle pain, weakness, stomach pain" - basically, it looks like the flu.
But he had just arrived from an Ebola zone.
Dude shows up at the hospital, is like "guys I feel kinda sick," they give him the standard treatment "take 2 and call me in the morning." Given that he lied about his risk factors on the travel documentation, I doubt he told the full truth at the hospital.
He did tell some people at the hospital he had just arrived from Liberia, but apparently everyone there didn't get the word.
In the meantime, workers clean up the vomit on the sidewalk, because that's what you do with vomit on the sidewalk.
You don't clean up Ebola-victim vomit by pressure-washing it, especially without a Hazmat suit, because one droplet landing on a mucus membrane can give you Ebola.