Yes, but the licensing applies to both and if you were going to pick one that it would apply to (for some reason), there are reasons to assume it would be the players.
I'm in a similar position, but do it the other way around. I use an English (UK) keyboard and use the Alt-Gr to get my é. I find that quite natural as I think of it as e with an accent so my brain just goes 'right, press the accent key when I type'. Or as I'm using KDE 60% of the time, it goes 'right, press the accent key-combo before I type', but that's splitting hairs. In either case, I think it would be a lot less intuitive for me to have to fiddle around with Alt-Gr to get { and }. I suppose it depends whether you meant you are a keyboard user who is French, or a user of French keyboards, with the former being the significant element.
When you have a need to enter accented characters, you also get in the habit of using the Alt Gr key pretty quickly. That also is acceptable. But something with more keys than the QWERTY keyboard is going to become bad, fast. Chorded keyboards shouldn't be much harder than a normal keyboard to master and would pay dividends, but that's nothing to do with the question of what glyphs to use in a programming language. I think the author of TFA has lost it. Sticking some obscure Unicode characters in the language isn't going to help any competent programmer and is just going to introduce some rare and bizarre bugs that will confuse the Hell out of you. Now being able to enter a language in full Unicode is / would be good, i.e. no tedious escaping the characters in string literals - just type them in, but that's not what the author is going on about.
That doesn't actually answer in any way the GP's question of whether S. Korea is saturated with other work and can't meet demand, or whether they are beind undercut by the Vietnamese.
When you are a multi-millionaire, you can protect your privacy whether people know your address or not. It's not like you'd be able to sneak into Larry Page's house at night or loiter outside his house till he has to go out. But most other people? They're more vulnerable.
There's already Bing which is just as capable as Google (bit nicer on Image searches, much worse on Usenet group searches). But even if there were a dozen such rival search engines, the addition of a free, public one, wouldn't solve Internet pollution caused by the mere existence of the commercial search engines. For example, try searching for any remotely obscure technical information and you find the same question and answers popping up again and again because some fucking screen scrapers have ripped off the original thread where it occured and put it on their own site. Not only does that make it harder to find varied answers, but it means that it's hard to find the original site and post followup questions or see if anybody else has. There mere existence of big advertising money distorts the Internet. Only if public search engines replaced commercial ones would Internet pollution be reduced.
Interesting. That's where the disconnect is then. I figured people who approved of the Holocaust (god help them) would wish to glorify it, not sweep it under the carpet.
All the more reason to write to your representatives and tell them how you feel about this. Of course I'm in the UK, but if the US rejects patenting genes, that will help the cause for all of us.
There's no economic gain at this point to going to the stars
There's an economic gain in a society being energised by trying new things. Okay, dedicating the planet's resources to sending an Apollo-sized capsule to another star, but there would definitely be great rewards in renewing our space programs,
I think that there is more merit to deriving satisfaction from achieving something difficult to achieving something trivial. Note, that stands even if some objective measure of the satisfaction showed them to be equivalent. If one teenager got their pleasure from more or less automatically clicking their way through some MMORG, and a different teenager got it from working to achieve their blue belt in Brazillian Ju-Jitsu, I consider the latter to have demonstrated greater discipline, ability and personal development. All of which are qualities that get my respect.
You pose the question "who cares". Everything is relative to something else. If I know someone, then I care to see more of the qualities that get my respect than those that don't. You may argue that I shouldn't care, but I don't currently see why I shouldn't.
Is this Farmville game actually hard / exciting, or is it an exercise in button pushing? We can't spend all our lives working and being productive - we'd fall over. But we can spend the non-productive time doing a variety of things... watching movies, chatting with friends or, if they still exist, play a challenging computer game. I'm curious. How does Farmville actually rate?
Well you nailed it when you put quote marks around "less profitable". The question is whether someone values their time so little that spending it playing farmville rates more highly, or whether they rate farmville so highly, that it's more valuable than other things they could do with their time. In either case, I can see why some would be concerned about such a person.
Personally, I can't put it any better than a friend of mine who uses Facebook put it when she said: "I get a message off this guy. He's a grown man. He's in his thirties. And he wants me to send him an onion."
If we ever discover martians, one of two things will happen. Either they will be more technologically advanced than us, in which case the US, Russian and Chinese governments will tell us all what wonderful friends of ours they are and offer us all as cheap, third-world labour to the martians. Or they'll be less technologically advanced than us in which case our governments will tell us what a terrible threat they are to us and invade them. Unless they're particularly fluffy and people protest, in which case we wont invade, we'll merely liberate them.
Post a few genuinely skeptical comments about AGW here or on the comments section of some mainstream UK newspapers (Independent, I'm looking at you). You get outrage and called a "denier" immediately.
Denier is a very pejorative term as it (a) unscientifically assumes something is uncontestable and (b) carries some unpleasant and deliberate connotations of holocaust denial.
Note your implication that skeptics should start telling the "deniers" that they are stupid presumes too false things. One - people who feel the science isn't good enough yet are compelled to offer an alternative certainty and tell others they are wrong, which misses the whole point of skepticism. And secondly, that people such as myself [i]don't[/i] pick holes in arguments wherever they find them. If someone, such as the OP was strawmanning, actually did come along and say "the climate never changes" I can assure you that most skeptics would turn on them like a pack of wolves. But the truth is that I've never come across such a person. Not in real life and not, as far as I recall, online. Find someone who states that the climate never changes and by all means, go and throw some data at them that shows otherwise. But look at all the posts you find on Slashdot or in the comments section of mainstream UK newspaper or other reasonably popular sites, and 99% of the people that get shouted down as "deniers" aren't arguing that. They're stating that they have problems with the case for AGW. And usually those problems are quite specific. Making generic and dismissive comments of "denier" as the OP did is unfounded.
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. If the country goes (even more) to Hell, the ruling class will simply take their fat bank accounts and move elsewhere leaving the rest of the people there to rot.
but the crazies on both sides are too loud to tell if that's the case.
Indeed they are loud. But one of the main problems is that people prefer to point at the crazies on the other side rather than address the more reasonable ones. For example, the strawman at the start who implied that skeptics were "deniers" (terrible biased word) who thought that there was no changing of the climate whereas the majority of skeptics are merely unconvinced of the primary factors being mankind's actions. And similarly, there are muppets on the side of the doubters. I got a nasty brush with that in a shop a few weeks ago when someone randomly picked up a copy of "Inconvenient Truth" and kept loudly exclaiming to his friend what a load of rubbish it was. Now I *am* a climate skeptic, but I didn't like his unshakeable certainty or outspoken contempt for the theory of AGW. Exposure to someone like that made me understand why some AGW proponents keep crying out about "deniers". It's because they're seeing people like him. That the majority of people I've talked with who are skeptical of AGW are rational people (well marginally more rational than the average person which still isn't that rational but about as good as you can hope for) and are simply demanding more proof and better science gets lost. Just as it gets lost that a lot of AGW proponents aren't in fact crying that the world will end next week. It's up to people on all "sides" to ignore the crazies not just on their own side but on the other side's as well, so that we can have a constructive debate. Otherwise we just get people attacking the least representative and easiest targets of the other side of the debate and patting themselves on the back for how much more right they are than the other.
And would be more than happy to make any scientists able to refute AGW fabulously wealthy on the personal level, any grant institution with assured funding.
I keep hearing this. Genuine question - what do oil companies have to gain by refuting AGW? Are people using less oil because of the fear of AGW? Oil is running out and that's not changing. We need to get off of oil whether AGW is significant or not and I presume that the big oil companies are already getting as much control over the non-oil energy industry as they possibly can already anyway. Knowing them, they'll find a way to charge us more for the same amount of energy whether they have to expensively pump it out of the ground or whether they get it cheap from some off-shore tidal barrier with government tax-breaks because it's green.
I'm just not sure that refuting AGW would make much difference to their bottom line.
. A helmet will not protect you in a serious accident and the slight increase in the risk taking behaviour you engage in by wearing one balances out the benefit you'd get from it, when compared to not wearing one when you're in a minor accident
It's a bit of a tangent, but I wear a cycle helmet for the protection, not so that I can be more reckless. Cycle helmet + non-idiot is safer than non-idiot without cycle helmet.
Anyway, do we really have to argue by analogy for something this basic? Can we not agree that the US, for example, treats other countries very differently because it can beat the shit out of them, than it would if it had no military advantage and had to negotiate with them purely on the basis of trade and niceness?
It used to be, didn't it? Wasn't collapse of the gulf stream one of the big risks put forward of global warming, at one point? Is that no longer supported by anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the licensing applies to both and if you were going to pick one that it would apply to (for some reason), there are reasons to assume it would be the players.
I'm in a similar position, but do it the other way around. I use an English (UK) keyboard and use the Alt-Gr to get my é. I find that quite natural as I think of it as e with an accent so my brain just goes 'right, press the accent key when I type'. Or as I'm using KDE 60% of the time, it goes 'right, press the accent key-combo before I type', but that's splitting hairs. In either case, I think it would be a lot less intuitive for me to have to fiddle around with Alt-Gr to get { and }. I suppose it depends whether you meant you are a keyboard user who is French, or a user of French keyboards, with the former being the significant element.
yes yes, but you have to replace two year olds a year after you get them.
Have you tried eBay?
When you have a need to enter accented characters, you also get in the habit of using the Alt Gr key pretty quickly. That also is acceptable. But something with more keys than the QWERTY keyboard is going to become bad, fast. Chorded keyboards shouldn't be much harder than a normal keyboard to master and would pay dividends, but that's nothing to do with the question of what glyphs to use in a programming language. I think the author of TFA has lost it. Sticking some obscure Unicode characters in the language isn't going to help any competent programmer and is just going to introduce some rare and bizarre bugs that will confuse the Hell out of you. Now being able to enter a language in full Unicode is / would be good, i.e. no tedious escaping the characters in string literals - just type them in, but that's not what the author is going on about.
Understanding it and applying it aren't the same thing
True, but it is hard to do the applying part if you haven't done the understanding part first.
That's curious. Nearly all of the DVD players sold in the UK (unless you're only talking about drives for computers?) are region free.
That doesn't actually answer in any way the GP's question of whether S. Korea is saturated with other work and can't meet demand, or whether they are beind undercut by the Vietnamese.
When you are a multi-millionaire, you can protect your privacy whether people know your address or not. It's not like you'd be able to sneak into Larry Page's house at night or loiter outside his house till he has to go out. But most other people? They're more vulnerable.
There's already Bing which is just as capable as Google (bit nicer on Image searches, much worse on Usenet group searches). But even if there were a dozen such rival search engines, the addition of a free, public one, wouldn't solve Internet pollution caused by the mere existence of the commercial search engines. For example, try searching for any remotely obscure technical information and you find the same question and answers popping up again and again because some fucking screen scrapers have ripped off the original thread where it occured and put it on their own site. Not only does that make it harder to find varied answers, but it means that it's hard to find the original site and post followup questions or see if anybody else has. There mere existence of big advertising money distorts the Internet. Only if public search engines replaced commercial ones would Internet pollution be reduced.
Interesting. That's where the disconnect is then. I figured people who approved of the Holocaust (god help them) would wish to glorify it, not sweep it under the carpet.
Surely, surely, it's only an offence to profess that the Holocaust didn't occur? Still screwed up, of course, but not quite as badly.
Well they test for it by asking you if you believe in it. If you say 'no' you've just professed it. ;)
I've never understood the movement of holocaust denial. What is the aim / benefit of teaching that it didn't happen or what world view does it enable?
All the more reason to write to your representatives and tell them how you feel about this. Of course I'm in the UK, but if the US rejects patenting genes, that will help the cause for all of us.
There's no economic gain at this point to going to the stars
There's an economic gain in a society being energised by trying new things. Okay, dedicating the planet's resources to sending an Apollo-sized capsule to another star, but there would definitely be great rewards in renewing our space programs,
Wait. You people are actually talking about cows with guns?
If pushing buttons is fun, who cares?
I think that there is more merit to deriving satisfaction from achieving something difficult to achieving something trivial. Note, that stands even if some objective measure of the satisfaction showed them to be equivalent. If one teenager got their pleasure from more or less automatically clicking their way through some MMORG, and a different teenager got it from working to achieve their blue belt in Brazillian Ju-Jitsu, I consider the latter to have demonstrated greater discipline, ability and personal development. All of which are qualities that get my respect.
You pose the question "who cares". Everything is relative to something else. If I know someone, then I care to see more of the qualities that get my respect than those that don't. You may argue that I shouldn't care, but I don't currently see why I shouldn't.
Sounds boring as a game. You can shoot a real cow with a bazooka for $50 in Cambodia :P
Doesn't sound exactly challenging. Do they run the same tours in New Deli?
Is this Farmville game actually hard / exciting, or is it an exercise in button pushing? We can't spend all our lives working and being productive - we'd fall over. But we can spend the non-productive time doing a variety of things... watching movies, chatting with friends or, if they still exist, play a challenging computer game. I'm curious. How does Farmville actually rate?
Well you nailed it when you put quote marks around "less profitable". The question is whether someone values their time so little that spending it playing farmville rates more highly, or whether they rate farmville so highly, that it's more valuable than other things they could do with their time. In either case, I can see why some would be concerned about such a person.
Personally, I can't put it any better than a friend of mine who uses Facebook put it when she said: "I get a message off this guy. He's a grown man. He's in his thirties. And he wants me to send him an onion."
If we ever discover martians, one of two things will happen. Either they will be more technologically advanced than us, in which case the US, Russian and Chinese governments will tell us all what wonderful friends of ours they are and offer us all as cheap, third-world labour to the martians. Or they'll be less technologically advanced than us in which case our governments will tell us what a terrible threat they are to us and invade them. Unless they're particularly fluffy and people protest, in which case we wont invade, we'll merely liberate them.
Post a few genuinely skeptical comments about AGW here or on the comments section of some mainstream UK newspapers (Independent, I'm looking at you). You get outrage and called a "denier" immediately.
Denier is a very pejorative term as it (a) unscientifically assumes something is uncontestable and (b) carries some unpleasant and deliberate connotations of holocaust denial.
Note your implication that skeptics should start telling the "deniers" that they are stupid presumes too false things. One - people who feel the science isn't good enough yet are compelled to offer an alternative certainty and tell others they are wrong, which misses the whole point of skepticism. And secondly, that people such as myself [i]don't[/i] pick holes in arguments wherever they find them. If someone, such as the OP was strawmanning, actually did come along and say "the climate never changes" I can assure you that most skeptics would turn on them like a pack of wolves. But the truth is that I've never come across such a person. Not in real life and not, as far as I recall, online. Find someone who states that the climate never changes and by all means, go and throw some data at them that shows otherwise. But look at all the posts you find on Slashdot or in the comments section of mainstream UK newspaper or other reasonably popular sites, and 99% of the people that get shouted down as "deniers" aren't arguing that. They're stating that they have problems with the case for AGW. And usually those problems are quite specific. Making generic and dismissive comments of "denier" as the OP did is unfounded.
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. If the country goes (even more) to Hell, the ruling class will simply take their fat bank accounts and move elsewhere leaving the rest of the people there to rot.
but the crazies on both sides are too loud to tell if that's the case.
Indeed they are loud. But one of the main problems is that people prefer to point at the crazies on the other side rather than address the more reasonable ones. For example, the strawman at the start who implied that skeptics were "deniers" (terrible biased word) who thought that there was no changing of the climate whereas the majority of skeptics are merely unconvinced of the primary factors being mankind's actions. And similarly, there are muppets on the side of the doubters. I got a nasty brush with that in a shop a few weeks ago when someone randomly picked up a copy of "Inconvenient Truth" and kept loudly exclaiming to his friend what a load of rubbish it was. Now I *am* a climate skeptic, but I didn't like his unshakeable certainty or outspoken contempt for the theory of AGW. Exposure to someone like that made me understand why some AGW proponents keep crying out about "deniers". It's because they're seeing people like him. That the majority of people I've talked with who are skeptical of AGW are rational people (well marginally more rational than the average person which still isn't that rational but about as good as you can hope for) and are simply demanding more proof and better science gets lost. Just as it gets lost that a lot of AGW proponents aren't in fact crying that the world will end next week. It's up to people on all "sides" to ignore the crazies not just on their own side but on the other side's as well, so that we can have a constructive debate. Otherwise we just get people attacking the least representative and easiest targets of the other side of the debate and patting themselves on the back for how much more right they are than the other.
And would be more than happy to make any scientists able to refute AGW fabulously wealthy on the personal level, any grant institution with assured funding.
I keep hearing this. Genuine question - what do oil companies have to gain by refuting AGW? Are people using less oil because of the fear of AGW? Oil is running out and that's not changing. We need to get off of oil whether AGW is significant or not and I presume that the big oil companies are already getting as much control over the non-oil energy industry as they possibly can already anyway. Knowing them, they'll find a way to charge us more for the same amount of energy whether they have to expensively pump it out of the ground or whether they get it cheap from some off-shore tidal barrier with government tax-breaks because it's green.
I'm just not sure that refuting AGW would make much difference to their bottom line.
. A helmet will not protect you in a serious accident and the slight increase in the risk taking behaviour you engage in by wearing one balances out the benefit you'd get from it, when compared to not wearing one when you're in a minor accident
It's a bit of a tangent, but I wear a cycle helmet for the protection, not so that I can be more reckless. Cycle helmet + non-idiot is safer than non-idiot without cycle helmet.
Anyway, do we really have to argue by analogy for something this basic? Can we not agree that the US, for example, treats other countries very differently because it can beat the shit out of them, than it would if it had no military advantage and had to negotiate with them purely on the basis of trade and niceness?
It used to be, didn't it? Wasn't collapse of the gulf stream one of the big risks put forward of global warming, at one point? Is that no longer supported by anyone?