want me to set one up for you? if you're really interested in crashing your xp (yes, just a good as a good old fashioned BSOD in quality). just say so. gs
Instead of calling the poster a liar, why not ask for the specific test he used?
He's free to reply and prove me wrong. How about it, kraksmoka? Post a link with the CSS which breaks IE6 in WinXP.
His post should not have been modded to +3 without proof, given how easy it is to check the claim. But people here are more interested in disparaging M$ than in the truth.
only the background is invalid in any way.
It's just as invalid as all the others.
No values like 1FFFFF were tested.
All of the values were "like 1FFFFF." Do you think the number isn't interpreted as hex unless it has letters in it or something?
try feeding a win xp machine running ie 6 a css file containing color styles in hex without a couple of # signs. instant crash!
I just had a friend try it, and it didn't work. Arguing for using an OS on ideological grounds is bad enough, but actually lying about the competition reaches new lows. Not that I needed more evidence that linux advocates have no credibility.
I don't think anybody is claiming that Microsoft doesn't have the right to sell or not sell XBox's wherever they please. However, this does not translate into the right to buy a law to suit their needs.
OK, so M$ has the right not to sell their products. So what are they doing here that they don't have the right to do? Informing someone that they're going to exercise their right to not sell their products? Oh, the humanity.
The entity at fault whenever a special interest purchases a law is always only the government. The government has no right to sell one person's rights to another. If you dislike the idea of Australia changing its laws because of this, then the only entity you should be blaming is Australia. As you said yourself, M$ has a right to do what it's doing.
Who needs all the extra features of MS Office anyway?
Almost everyone I've worked with. Just yesterday, one of my employers (I troubleshoot computers and teach) needed the fax wizard feature. Also yesterday, I needed to do a mail merge for another employer to create labels for their upcoming poster exhibit, and showed him how to use the convert table to text feature to generate a email mailing list of his previous customers. Near the beginning of the year, another one of my employers used Word for their company catalog which needed some fancy tables.
I live in New York, so maybe I'm around more sophisticated people, but none of these people were geeks. Two of them are almost technophobes.
doesn't this in essence give Microsoft (and others) the power to create law?
No. It allows them to control how much of their rights to a product they give up in exchange for your dollars. This is just M$ exercising its property rights, and has nothing to do with creation of laws.
now ebay is involving themselves in the financial end as well... this will make things more complicated.
You bring up a very important point: when an organization gets involved in more things, it gets harder to manage. If this principle was commonly understood, it would have profound political implications. It implies that there's a practical limit to how large a corporation can get (since it can't use force to get involved in more things it can manage profitable), and that the more things government gets involved with (using force), the worse it gets at managing all of them.
"How do we learn fast enough so that we are learning faster than the world changes?" asked Mr Graham, "if we are not learning faster than the world changes then we cannot possibly control it."
Does anyone else see a logical flaw in that argument?
I don't know what you said, but there's an obvious flaw: the world changes because we change it, and our understanding its current state is a requisite for our changing its state. If we don't understand the world, the world stops changing until we understand it enough to change it again. It's not like there's some mystical change happening to the world which is disconnected from human action and which we have to strive to understand before our ignorance kills us.
so where do I pick up my compensation check for getting screwed over for all these years?
You don't, because you weren't screwed. No one forced you to buy CDs; there was no fraud, no violation of your rights. You're not a victim, just a whiner who wants other people to provide you with everything you want regardless of whether they profit by it.
4. The hijackers did not require vast financial resources to pursue their plans.
You understimate the costs of education and organization. Some of these people had to be trained as pilots, educated about the system they were penetrating, trained to pull off the mission successfully, and organized so they would all work together. You're making the classical geek mistake of ignoring the value and costs of good organization.
Just like there's more to making complex software than some dude with a compiler, there's more to terrorist attacks than boarding a plane with a box-cutter.
Put it in the foundation of an expensive building. Make it public knowledge that valuables are hidden in the foundation, but not enough to make it profitable to destroy the building to retrieve them. When it's time to demolish the building anyway, someone will remember the valuables in the foundation and will look.
Come to think of it, there's no need to drop it on Mars. There are plenty of deserted places on Earth. Bury it on some uninhabited island, and put a device with it which will start to emit interesting signals after enough time passed. Some country's satellite will probably pick it up then and someone will be sent to investigate.
Launch a spacecraft with the information away from Earth. Inform the world of what you've done when the spacecraft is far enough away to be irretrievable with current technology. As technology advances, humans develop ability to retrieve spacecraft. There are two problems:
Inability to estimate when the spacecraft will be retrievable
Expense of retrieval will discourage retrieval even when it's retrievable
There is no solution to the first problem. To solve the second, you need to leave convincing evidence that retrieving the spacecraft will be worthwhile. Whether this is possible depends on your invention.
Your description of in the head thinkers being somehow better able to deal with computers than in the world thinkers is nonsense. I'm working for a husband and wife couple as a technical advisor. The husband is what you describe as an 'in the head' thinker while the wife is an 'in the world' thinker. The wife without exception has an easier time dealing with computer-related issues.
A typical exchange between her and I would be something like her asking me how to do something in Word. She would start Word, go through the steps necessary to get her to the problem, and then with the info on the screen she would describe what she wants to do and what she tried to do that didn't work. If I ask her to describe something in the abstract, without it being on the screen in front of her, she will always insist that she show me on screen. She frequently makes comments like 'I'll remember what the problem was when I see it again' (meaning the document she was working with). The 'solution' that she wants from me is always how to navigate the interface to do what she wants, rather than an abstract explanation.
In contrast, the husband when asking for help does so without looking at the monitor, trying to explain the problem in the abstract. I have to insist that he bring up the problem on the screen so I can show the solution because the abstractions I give him wouldn't have a referent in his mind otherwise. A typical example of the contrast is that when the wife wants to find a file, she immediately goes to her documents folder (this is on a Macintosh) and looks visually for the file she wants, with some broad parameters as a guide to narrow her search. When the husband wants to find a file, he asks himself what sort of file it is, and where in his directory structure would he most likely have saved it. He frequently decides that the file is in (say) 'artwork,' is unable to find it, and then thinks about it more and decides that it must be in 'images,' etc.
The husband distrusts 'in the world' knowledge and insists on having everything in his head, while the wife distrusts 'in the head' knowledge and insists on dealing directly with the world. Neither is computer-savvy, but I've frequently had times when I spent several hours plodding along with the husband through simple problems, then spending a few minutes with the wife and having her understand much more complicated situations easier.
So there's nothing about 'in the head' thinking that is necessarily better suited for technical problems. The intelligence of the person in question (i.e., their ability to effectively use whatever type of thinking they have), is the key factor. What you're describing above is an 'in the world' thinker whose resolution is much coarser than a 'in the head' thinker. There's no reason why an 'in the world' thinker would necessarily be unable to differentiate between a mouse click in one context and a mouse click in another. And there's no reason why an 'in the head' thinker would necessarily be able to.
OK.. when science is having to develop new methods which have absolutely no practical value other than to dodge patent laws, you know the patent law is completely unjust.
Patent laws gave birth to the corporate research lab. Let's have some perspective here, shall we?
Re:Days of denial are over.
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 1
If you don't think global warming is real, great, PROVE IT!
No, you prove it. There are a half dozen explanations for perceived fluctuations in temperatures. Before we commit vast sums of money to "remedy" a problem, we need to be sure that it is a problem and that we can remedy it. The only thing we know in this situation is that fighting alleged global warming is expensive. Everything else is speculation. We need to go beyond the speculation stage before we start throwing money at this.
Cato Institute papers lost all credibility for me when I looked at the references to 2 of them, and discovered that the vast majority of the citations were - to other Cato Institute papers. Logrolling at its worst.
It's interesting that you haven't provided a reference to the Cato paper in the very post in which you're accusing them of bad scholarship. In both cases this doesn't mean that said reference doesn't exist. I've yet to see Cato make up facts--they realize that doing so would hurt their position.
This is ad hominem. Note that you couldn't address their actual argument. Note what this says about their argument and about your intellectual integrity.
Sets must involve some sort of manually maintained database which stores the categories in which different search terms belong. There's no way an algorithm could know that "Beggars in Spain" (a book) is in a different set than "Nancy Kress" (its author) otherwise. Also, query "Julian Jaynes" returns nothing, though the Google search engine finds around 3,000 pages with the term. If an algorithm alone was responsible for sets, this wouldn't make sense, but it makes sense if the Google staff who maintain the database never heard of Julian Jaynes.
Slashdot Mirror
want me to set one up for you? if you're really interested in crashing your xp (yes, just a good as a good old fashioned BSOD in quality). just say so. gs
Post the link.
Instead of calling the poster a liar, why not ask for the specific test he used?
He's free to reply and prove me wrong. How about it, kraksmoka? Post a link with the CSS which breaks IE6 in WinXP.
His post should not have been modded to +3 without proof, given how easy it is to check the claim. But people here are more interested in disparaging M$ than in the truth.
only the background is invalid in any way.
It's just as invalid as all the others.
No values like 1FFFFF were tested.
All of the values were "like 1FFFFF." Do you think the number isn't interpreted as hex unless it has letters in it or something?
try feeding a win xp machine running ie 6 a css file containing color styles in hex without a couple of # signs. instant crash!
I just had a friend try it, and it didn't work. Arguing for using an OS on ideological grounds is bad enough, but actually lying about the competition reaches new lows. Not that I needed more evidence that linux advocates have no credibility.
I don't think anybody is claiming that Microsoft doesn't have the right to sell or not sell XBox's wherever they please. However, this does not translate into the right to buy a law to suit their needs.
OK, so M$ has the right not to sell their products. So what are they doing here that they don't have the right to do? Informing someone that they're going to exercise their right to not sell their products? Oh, the humanity.
The entity at fault whenever a special interest purchases a law is always only the government. The government has no right to sell one person's rights to another. If you dislike the idea of Australia changing its laws because of this, then the only entity you should be blaming is Australia. As you said yourself, M$ has a right to do what it's doing.
Who needs all the extra features of MS Office anyway?
Almost everyone I've worked with. Just yesterday, one of my employers (I troubleshoot computers and teach) needed the fax wizard feature. Also yesterday, I needed to do a mail merge for another employer to create labels for their upcoming poster exhibit, and showed him how to use the convert table to text feature to generate a email mailing list of his previous customers. Near the beginning of the year, another one of my employers used Word for their company catalog which needed some fancy tables.
I live in New York, so maybe I'm around more sophisticated people, but none of these people were geeks. Two of them are almost technophobes.
doesn't this in essence give Microsoft (and others) the power to create law?
No. It allows them to control how much of their rights to a product they give up in exchange for your dollars. This is just M$ exercising its property rights, and has nothing to do with creation of laws.
now ebay is involving themselves in the financial end as well... this will make things more complicated.
You bring up a very important point: when an organization gets involved in more things, it gets harder to manage. If this principle was commonly understood, it would have profound political implications. It implies that there's a practical limit to how large a corporation can get (since it can't use force to get involved in more things it can manage profitable), and that the more things government gets involved with (using force), the worse it gets at managing all of them.
"How do we learn fast enough so that we are learning faster than the world changes?" asked Mr Graham, "if we are not learning faster than the world changes then we cannot possibly control it."
Does anyone else see a logical flaw in that argument?
I don't know what you said, but there's an obvious flaw: the world changes because we change it, and our understanding its current state is a requisite for our changing its state. If we don't understand the world, the world stops changing until we understand it enough to change it again. It's not like there's some mystical change happening to the world which is disconnected from human action and which we have to strive to understand before our ignorance kills us.
so where do I pick up my compensation check for getting screwed over for all these years?
You don't, because you weren't screwed. No one forced you to buy CDs; there was no fraud, no violation of your rights. You're not a victim, just a whiner who wants other people to provide you with everything you want regardless of whether they profit by it.
Huh? Forced them? How did they do that?
Is this kind of like open source "forces" users to know more about their computers? Is that a law suit waiting to happen?
4. The hijackers did not require vast financial resources to pursue their plans.
You understimate the costs of education and organization. Some of these people had to be trained as pilots, educated about the system they were penetrating, trained to pull off the mission successfully, and organized so they would all work together. You're making the classical geek mistake of ignoring the value and costs of good organization.
Just like there's more to making complex software than some dude with a compiler, there's more to terrorist attacks than boarding a plane with a box-cutter.
It's becoming tempting to get a Mac, but I still wouldn't want to have one as my only computer.
Instead of a "my dick is bigger than your dick" contest, this is a "my UID is smaller than your UID".
We wouldn't be doing something so immature.
My UID is smaller than your UID though. :-P
Put it in the foundation of an expensive building. Make it public knowledge that valuables are hidden in the foundation, but not enough to make it profitable to destroy the building to retrieve them. When it's time to demolish the building anyway, someone will remember the valuables in the foundation and will look.
Come to think of it, there's no need to drop it on Mars. There are plenty of deserted places on Earth. Bury it on some uninhabited island, and put a device with it which will start to emit interesting signals after enough time passed. Some country's satellite will probably pick it up then and someone will be sent to investigate.
Drop a capsule with the information on Mars. As Mars exploration intensifies, capsule is found and the information retrieved.
Launch a spacecraft with the information away from Earth. Inform the world of what you've done when the spacecraft is far enough away to be irretrievable with current technology. As technology advances, humans develop ability to retrieve spacecraft. There are two problems:
There is no solution to the first problem. To solve the second, you need to leave convincing evidence that retrieving the spacecraft will be worthwhile. Whether this is possible depends on your invention.
Sorry, dude. I invoke Kornea's Law.
;-)
The thread continues.
Your description of in the head thinkers being somehow better able to deal with computers than in the world thinkers is nonsense. I'm working for a husband and wife couple as a technical advisor. The husband is what you describe as an 'in the head' thinker while the wife is an 'in the world' thinker. The wife without exception has an easier time dealing with computer-related issues.
A typical exchange between her and I would be something like her asking me how to do something in Word. She would start Word, go through the steps necessary to get her to the problem, and then with the info on the screen she would describe what she wants to do and what she tried to do that didn't work. If I ask her to describe something in the abstract, without it being on the screen in front of her, she will always insist that she show me on screen. She frequently makes comments like 'I'll remember what the problem was when I see it again' (meaning the document she was working with). The 'solution' that she wants from me is always how to navigate the interface to do what she wants, rather than an abstract explanation.
In contrast, the husband when asking for help does so without looking at the monitor, trying to explain the problem in the abstract. I have to insist that he bring up the problem on the screen so I can show the solution because the abstractions I give him wouldn't have a referent in his mind otherwise. A typical example of the contrast is that when the wife wants to find a file, she immediately goes to her documents folder (this is on a Macintosh) and looks visually for the file she wants, with some broad parameters as a guide to narrow her search. When the husband wants to find a file, he asks himself what sort of file it is, and where in his directory structure would he most likely have saved it. He frequently decides that the file is in (say) 'artwork,' is unable to find it, and then thinks about it more and decides that it must be in 'images,' etc.
The husband distrusts 'in the world' knowledge and insists on having everything in his head, while the wife distrusts 'in the head' knowledge and insists on dealing directly with the world. Neither is computer-savvy, but I've frequently had times when I spent several hours plodding along with the husband through simple problems, then spending a few minutes with the wife and having her understand much more complicated situations easier.
So there's nothing about 'in the head' thinking that is necessarily better suited for technical problems. The intelligence of the person in question (i.e., their ability to effectively use whatever type of thinking they have), is the key factor. What you're describing above is an 'in the world' thinker whose resolution is much coarser than a 'in the head' thinker. There's no reason why an 'in the world' thinker would necessarily be unable to differentiate between a mouse click in one context and a mouse click in another. And there's no reason why an 'in the head' thinker would necessarily be able to.
OK.. when science is having to develop new methods which have absolutely no practical value other than to dodge patent laws, you know the patent law is completely unjust.
Patent laws gave birth to the corporate research lab. Let's have some perspective here, shall we?
If you don't think global warming is real, great, PROVE IT!
No, you prove it. There are a half dozen explanations for perceived fluctuations in temperatures. Before we commit vast sums of money to "remedy" a problem, we need to be sure that it is a problem and that we can remedy it. The only thing we know in this situation is that fighting alleged global warming is expensive. Everything else is speculation. We need to go beyond the speculation stage before we start throwing money at this.
Cato Institute papers lost all credibility for me when I looked at the references to 2 of them, and discovered that the vast majority of the citations were - to other Cato Institute papers. Logrolling at its worst.
It's interesting that you haven't provided a reference to the Cato paper in the very post in which you're accusing them of bad scholarship. In both cases this doesn't mean that said reference doesn't exist. I've yet to see Cato make up facts--they realize that doing so would hurt their position.
This is ad hominem. Note that you couldn't address their actual argument. Note what this says about their argument and about your intellectual integrity.
Here's a good article which explains why the Kyoto Protocol is a bad idea and the US was wise to stay out of it.
Sets must involve some sort of manually maintained database which stores the categories in which different search terms belong. There's no way an algorithm could know that "Beggars in Spain" (a book) is in a different set than "Nancy Kress" (its author) otherwise. Also, query "Julian Jaynes" returns nothing, though the Google search engine finds around 3,000 pages with the term. If an algorithm alone was responsible for sets, this wouldn't make sense, but it makes sense if the Google staff who maintain the database never heard of Julian Jaynes.