That's one viewpoint (and the one I hold to). On the other hand, the whole reason the Bill of Rights exists is because there was concern that non-enumerated rights would be trampled. They had no idea how right they were...
Yea, but can you migrate windows from one graphics card to another? Dual head on one card works great. Beyond that it's kinda spotty (as of last year).
While it's true that X doesn't care how many, you can't migrate windows between different screens if they're connected to separate graphics cards (last I tried). For example, Xinerama (randr, etc) just don't work! This means that you must open each application on the screen where you want it to stay. And programs that open a whole slew of windows, well you're just kinda stuck. That's why his comment about day traders was spot on. (You want as many screens as you can get, each with several charts and studies - all one program)
I hope things have changed since I last looked at this. I know there were people working on the problem.
what if a client has another web app they spent big money on that only runs on IE6,...
If it's well designed, it should be easy to update the html, css, and javascript. They should be easy to find, and there should be good documentation. They did spend "big money" on it, after all.
what if their worldwide network SOE is based on IE6?
That's just a sign of incompetence at this point (or laziness, or both). And no, I would never phrase it that succinctly to a client. The rule of thumb is to develop pages to the latest two versions of each major browser. IT should therefore strive to be at the current version, but should never get more than one version behind.
in most contexts, the customer is right. it's only in the event they aren't paying or that you don't NEED those users...
If someone is waving actual money in front of your face, and insists on IE6 support, it still doesn't make them right. Oh, it can be negotiated, don't get me wrong. Doing so is just ignoring the real problem (whatever it is). Helping them understand what's really going on and building an upgrade plan is in their best interests in the long term. Most will appreciate the candor. Besides, it might mean more work for you in the short term (undoing whatever mess they've gotten themselves into).
oh and the reason ie 1-5 isn't in use has nothing to do with websites removing support - it's because MS forced everyone to upgrade.
Read what I wrote, please. And no, MS didn't "force" anybody to upgrade. At least, no more than they're doing now with XP and IE6. My point stands.
The customer is not always right. (especially if the service in question is free) Can users dictate their needs to developers? They can try, but if they want the moon, they're going to be disappointed. IE6 needs to be unsupported eventually. Or do you propose continuing support for IE1-5 too? The only reason we don't see them in use today is because they (and they OS they run on) are deprecated. Stop laughing, I'm quite serious.
What I don't get is why India wants to stop remittances from coming into the country. Why wouldn't they want money to flow into the country which will be spent in the local economy? The foreign currency will either fund imports or will favorably affect exchange rates. I'm clearly missing something here.
Brian Gordon
Group Manager at Microsoft
Greater Seattle Area
Ah. I see now. No offense intended. I didn't know that it was personal.
I will certainly give your team (or peers, whatever) the benefit of the doubt on this, but I don't buy for a second that they're the only ones who can know what their talking about. They may be the only ones who do know what they're talking about, though. (important difference)
Are you a Chinese agent? Sorry, but I couldn't resist asking. I'm just curious why you're an apologist for their government. Do you work for a large corporation with foreign interests? Are you a poly-sci major at an "interesting" college?
Trust is something you earn, it can't simply be assumed a priori.
Ok. Right back at you. Why are you so willing to trust them.
(I can understand your distrust of American media. I take that as a given.)
... the majority of politicians genuinely care about the people. Even American politicians do...
You have a more optimistic outlook on life than I do. Are there politicians who care? Yes. The ones with real power? Maybe a few of them. Google "pork barrel" sometime.
Really? It is my impression that they are openminded and willing to listen to contructive criticism; but they are not willing to waste time on fools, and they can't afford to be lenient towards troublemakers.
If you were offended by my use of the word apologist above, please read and reread what you just wrote.
When activists cover behind labels like religion or democracy, do we really know what they stand for? I mean, aren't al Qaeda "religious activists", just to pick an extreme example?
Next you'll tell me about the Tibetan Jihad. This makes you look like the Bigot here. Please be careful. If you use a brush much broader, you won't be able to get it into the paint can.
And the propaganda part - are they any worse than other governments?
No. From time to time most governments have been just as bad. (USA during WW2, for example.)
As far as I can see, the internet filters are there because most Chinese want them; parents don't want their children to get caught up in what they see as Western filth in a medium they don't understand...
Much of what you call propaganda, the Chinese probably think of as obvious expressions of their cultural mindset;
To be clear, you're saying that the Chinese people don't enjoy free speech (as part of "their cultural mindset")? I believe it's possible. People can be taught that. I just want to be clear what you're saying.
And what about Chinese history? Are you saying that these parents don't want their children learning about their own history?
they aren't Americans, you know.
I know, but they are human, you know. Sooner or later, they're going to want to think for themselves.
I think there are some trolls with mod points who are still upset over a previous post of mine. They had no reason to be mad then either. They went on a rampage moderating down every post I had made in every thread that was still open. There's nothing that can be done about it. I just hope they get meta-modded accordingly.
So, you're a "litmus test" kinda guy? Unfortunately, the important facts can be very difficult to ascertain. It may be fact that a candidate has spoken one way consistently (and voted that way), only to change their tune when they get elected to a higher office.
I'm not saying your way is wrong. It can be an important part of an overall position. I don't like it on its own because it seems very oversimplified and shallow.
Did you just make exactly the same argument that I did? (that debate will continue beyond discredited researchers)
As a side note, do you (or anybody) know which "quality studies" were funded (directly, or indirectly) by the pharmaceutical companies in question? I don't care if they're quality studies if they're not independent studies. In fact, nobody in this entire thread has mentioned another specific study. It's almost as if people are saying: "well, there must be some -- er, somewhere". I'm sure there are, but I'm sick of the assumption.
This is nothing more than simple bigotry. You want them removed, not because they are more likely to abuse their position, but because they are Chinese or "Communists" or whatever.
I'm hurt by your irrational rush to judgment. Your zeal has blinded you to my motives, and to what I said.
At issue here is the ability of the Chinese government to run [MiTM] attacks on their citizens...
Were I a bigot, I'd simply say that they got what they had coming to them. No, I care what happens to the Chinese people (as much as anyone I haven't met), and the Chinese Government has gone out of its way to be concerning.
... or "Communists" or whatever.
I could live with any form of government, with one STRONG requirement: those who lead the government must do so for the sole benefit of their countrymen. (Granted, it doesn't happen very often. It's really quite rare.) That's it. Kingdom, Democracy, Communism, Republic, whatever. The problem is endurance of this kind of dedication. Corruption creeps in as one generation retires and the next takes the reigns. The reason democracies (& republics) work so well (and are therefore preferable) is that they balance power and have self correcting mechanisms (such as elections). Winston Churchill is often quoted as saying: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."
I don't dislike the Chinese Government because they are Communist, I dislike the Chinese Government because they do not care about their people. They only care about the power they exert over the largest country on Earth. They're paranoid of opposing points of view. They have embraced censorship and propaganda as vital to their continuing governance. They imprison peaceful political dissidents. They've committed mass murder, more than once.
You don't see something wrong with this? You seriously can't imagine how these types of people will abuse a root cert?
The whole point of root certs is trust
No, the point is convenience. It is ultimately your own responsibility who you choose to trust, which is why you can edit the list of authorities your browser trusts.
I see your point, and respect it, but we're going to have to agree to disagree here. It really is about trust. You decide who you are going to trust as a CA, and that's good for you. The average person is not qualified to make this kind of decision. Even if they were, they wouldn't have time (along with the million other things that "responsible" citizens should research on an ongoing basis). As such, they trust the browser to have trustworthy root certs. Right or wrong, they do, and it will work no other way.
You can chalk it up to "security theater" if you insist. (I wouldn't, but you may.)
Any argument that attacks a person in order to discredit an idea is an ad hominem by the very definition of the term. It doesn't matter if the conclusion is true or false. It doesn't matter how many individuals are attacked.
Truth is truth regardless of who promotes it, or who fails to.*
Hopefully, one day you will see this.
*(I am NOT making a statement about autism here. I am making a statement about epistemology)
Note that these are always illustrated with an unrelated example. An example of a fallacy can be a terribly analogy to another incident of the same fallacy. As such, I wasn't making an analogy. I was attacking a bad argument's structure.
However let's assume I did misunderstand that bit, it still doesn't change the point everyone here is trying to get through to you...
Your hypothesis = MMR can cause autisim in some cases.
You also seem to think that I'm promoting the vaccination-causes-autism theory. This too just means that you're not paying attention. All I've said is that the debate will continue despite this announcement. I've now said this multiple times (in line with this post), but it still hasn't sunk in...
If every round-worlder was an idiot it would be evidence that the world is not round. If none of the intelligent experts think the world is round that's pretty convincing evidence that it isn't round to me.
Well, at least I can see what your problem is, even if you can't.
you suggested that the pharmaceutical industry might be engaged in a massive coverup.
They're certainly capable. Has one taken place? I don't know. They have motive. It's not enough for any kind of decision, but I'm open to the idea. I'll wait to see if anyone claims evidence.
You seem to be under the impression that this is wacky and impossible.
... an unethical doctor with massive conflicts of interest and airhead former playboy models...
Instead what I'm doing is pointing out that all the messengers are unethical, uneducated, or quacks, and can't be relied on to be right about the question in point.
Am I supposed to laugh or cry?
Oh, and it is still ad hominem. If every round-worlder were an idiot, it would make the world no less round. Attacking every messenger does not absolve you from faulty logic.
If a vaccine prevented a disease that kills 1 in 100 kids who are infected, but the vaccine kills 1 in 10 million. The vaccine should be given out to everyone.
That is horribly oversimplified.
You also need to look at rates of infection, "at risk" groups, and other forms of vaccination for the same disease. There are people who are at greater risk of autism than others. If these vaccines are a contributing factor, there may be people for whom this is not the best solution.
Autism is on the rise as rates of "retardation" are dropping. Ever thought those two facts might be connected?
I was supporting the argument I was getting ready to make: "These companies do make mistakes." and pointed out a bad batch of H1N1 nasal vaccinations. Continued here.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one viewpoint (and the one I hold to). On the other hand, the whole reason the Bill of Rights exists is because there was concern that non-enumerated rights would be trampled. They had no idea how right they were...
Methinks we're about to disagree about the intent of the 2nd amendment...
Now that's just Fud(d).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loony_Tunes
As many as they can get. I've heard it said: Never hire a stock broker with only one computer at his desk.
Yea, but can you migrate windows from one graphics card to another? Dual head on one card works great. Beyond that it's kinda spotty (as of last year).
While it's true that X doesn't care how many, you can't migrate windows between different screens if they're connected to separate graphics cards (last I tried). For example, Xinerama (randr, etc) just don't work! This means that you must open each application on the screen where you want it to stay. And programs that open a whole slew of windows, well you're just kinda stuck. That's why his comment about day traders was spot on. (You want as many screens as you can get, each with several charts and studies - all one program)
I hope things have changed since I last looked at this. I know there were people working on the problem.
I don't know whether to congratulate or console you... ;)
what if a client has another web app they spent big money on that only runs on IE6,...
If it's well designed, it should be easy to update the html, css, and javascript. They should be easy to find, and there should be good documentation. They did spend "big money" on it, after all.
what if their worldwide network SOE is based on IE6?
That's just a sign of incompetence at this point (or laziness, or both). And no, I would never phrase it that succinctly to a client. The rule of thumb is to develop pages to the latest two versions of each major browser. IT should therefore strive to be at the current version, but should never get more than one version behind.
in most contexts, the customer is right. it's only in the event they aren't paying or that you don't NEED those users...
If someone is waving actual money in front of your face, and insists on IE6 support, it still doesn't make them right. Oh, it can be negotiated, don't get me wrong. Doing so is just ignoring the real problem (whatever it is). Helping them understand what's really going on and building an upgrade plan is in their best interests in the long term. Most will appreciate the candor. Besides, it might mean more work for you in the short term (undoing whatever mess they've gotten themselves into).
oh and the reason ie 1-5 isn't in use has nothing to do with websites removing support - it's because MS forced everyone to upgrade.
Read what I wrote, please. And no, MS didn't "force" anybody to upgrade. At least, no more than they're doing now with XP and IE6. My point stands.
I respectfully disagree.
The customer is not always right. (especially if the service in question is free) Can users dictate their needs to developers? They can try, but if they want the moon, they're going to be disappointed. IE6 needs to be unsupported eventually. Or do you propose continuing support for IE1-5 too? The only reason we don't see them in use today is because they (and they OS they run on) are deprecated. Stop laughing, I'm quite serious.
What I don't get is why India wants to stop remittances from coming into the country. Why wouldn't they want money to flow into the country which will be spent in the local economy? The foreign currency will either fund imports or will favorably affect exchange rates. I'm clearly missing something here.
I think Brian is trying to say that he designed the system and is a bit upset that we're bagging it out without asking him for an explanation first.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/bngordon
Brian Gordon
Group Manager at Microsoft
Greater Seattle Area
Ah. I see now. No offense intended. I didn't know that it was personal.
I will certainly give your team (or peers, whatever) the benefit of the doubt on this, but I don't buy for a second that they're the only ones who can know what their talking about. They may be the only ones who do know what they're talking about, though. (important difference)
And of course nobody will pay attention to the only source that can possibly know what they're talking about: the engineers that designed the system..
That was sarcasm, no?
(Nothing about this particular problem, but we've seen denials before...)
Are you a Chinese agent? Sorry, but I couldn't resist asking. I'm just curious why you're an apologist for their government. Do you work for a large corporation with foreign interests? Are you a poly-sci major at an "interesting" college?
Trust is something you earn, it can't simply be assumed a priori.
Ok. Right back at you. Why are you so willing to trust them.
(I can understand your distrust of American media. I take that as a given.)
... the majority of politicians genuinely care about the people. Even American politicians do...
You have a more optimistic outlook on life than I do. Are there politicians who care? Yes. The ones with real power? Maybe a few of them. Google "pork barrel" sometime.
Really? It is my impression that they are openminded and willing to listen to contructive criticism; but they are not willing to waste time on fools, and they can't afford to be lenient towards troublemakers.
If you were offended by my use of the word apologist above, please read and reread what you just wrote.
When activists cover behind labels like religion or democracy, do we really know what they stand for? I mean, aren't al Qaeda "religious activists", just to pick an extreme example?
Next you'll tell me about the Tibetan Jihad. This makes you look like the Bigot here. Please be careful. If you use a brush much broader, you won't be able to get it into the paint can.
And the propaganda part - are they any worse than other governments?
No. From time to time most governments have been just as bad. (USA during WW2, for example.)
As far as I can see, the internet filters are there because most Chinese want them; parents don't want their children to get caught up in what they see as Western filth in a medium they don't understand...
Much of what you call propaganda, the Chinese probably think of as obvious expressions of their cultural mindset;
To be clear, you're saying that the Chinese people don't enjoy free speech (as part of "their cultural mindset")? I believe it's possible. People can be taught that. I just want to be clear what you're saying.
And what about Chinese history? Are you saying that these parents don't want their children learning about their own history?
they aren't Americans, you know.
I know, but they are human, you know. Sooner or later, they're going to want to think for themselves.
I think there are some trolls with mod points who are still upset over a previous post of mine. They had no reason to be mad then either. They went on a rampage moderating down every post I had made in every thread that was still open. There's nothing that can be done about it. I just hope they get meta-modded accordingly.
So, you're a "litmus test" kinda guy? Unfortunately, the important facts can be very difficult to ascertain. It may be fact that a candidate has spoken one way consistently (and voted that way), only to change their tune when they get elected to a higher office.
I'm not saying your way is wrong. It can be an important part of an overall position. I don't like it on its own because it seems very oversimplified and shallow.
???
Did you just make exactly the same argument that I did? (that debate will continue beyond discredited researchers)
As a side note, do you (or anybody) know which "quality studies" were funded (directly, or indirectly) by the pharmaceutical companies in question? I don't care if they're quality studies if they're not independent studies. In fact, nobody in this entire thread has mentioned another specific study. It's almost as if people are saying: "well, there must be some -- er, somewhere". I'm sure there are, but I'm sick of the assumption.
This is nothing more than simple bigotry. You want them removed, not because they are more likely to abuse their position, but because they are Chinese or "Communists" or whatever.
I'm hurt by your irrational rush to judgment. Your zeal has blinded you to my motives, and to what I said.
At issue here is the ability of the Chinese government to run [MiTM] attacks on their citizens...
Were I a bigot, I'd simply say that they got what they had coming to them. No, I care what happens to the Chinese people (as much as anyone I haven't met), and the Chinese Government has gone out of its way to be concerning.
... or "Communists" or whatever.
I could live with any form of government, with one STRONG requirement: those who lead the government must do so for the sole benefit of their countrymen. (Granted, it doesn't happen very often. It's really quite rare.) That's it. Kingdom, Democracy, Communism, Republic, whatever. The problem is endurance of this kind of dedication. Corruption creeps in as one generation retires and the next takes the reigns. The reason democracies (& republics) work so well (and are therefore preferable) is that they balance power and have self correcting mechanisms (such as elections). Winston Churchill is often quoted as saying: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."
I don't dislike the Chinese Government because they are Communist, I dislike the Chinese Government because they do not care about their people. They only care about the power they exert over the largest country on Earth. They're paranoid of opposing points of view. They have embraced censorship and propaganda as vital to their continuing governance. They imprison peaceful political dissidents. They've committed mass murder, more than once.
You don't see something wrong with this? You seriously can't imagine how these types of people will abuse a root cert?
The whole point of root certs is trust
No, the point is convenience. It is ultimately your own responsibility who you choose to trust, which is why you can edit the list of authorities your browser trusts.
I see your point, and respect it, but we're going to have to agree to disagree here. It really is about trust. You decide who you are going to trust as a CA, and that's good for you. The average person is not qualified to make this kind of decision. Even if they were, they wouldn't have time (along with the million other things that "responsible" citizens should research on an ongoing basis). As such, they trust the browser to have trustworthy root certs. Right or wrong, they do, and it will work no other way.
You can chalk it up to "security theater" if you insist. (I wouldn't, but you may.)
Well, now it seems they've come up with all kinds of things ;)
Any argument that attacks a person in order to discredit an idea is an ad hominem by the very definition of the term. It doesn't matter if the conclusion is true or false. It doesn't matter how many individuals are attacked.
Truth is truth regardless of who promotes it, or who fails to.*
Hopefully, one day you will see this.
*(I am NOT making a statement about autism here. I am making a statement about epistemology)
It seems that you followed the link, but really didn't read it's contents.
Here are some other links.
Note that these are always illustrated with an unrelated example. An example of a fallacy can be a terribly analogy to another incident of the same fallacy. As such, I wasn't making an analogy. I was attacking a bad argument's structure.
However let's assume I did misunderstand that bit, it still doesn't change the point everyone here is trying to get through to you...
Your hypothesis = MMR can cause autisim in some cases.
You also seem to think that I'm promoting the vaccination-causes-autism theory. This too just means that you're not paying attention. All I've said is that the debate will continue despite this announcement. I've now said this multiple times (in line with this post), but it still hasn't sunk in...
If every round-worlder was an idiot it would be evidence that the world is not round. If none of the intelligent experts think the world is round that's pretty convincing evidence that it isn't round to me.
Well, at least I can see what your problem is, even if you can't.
This doesn't help unless you tell us how old he was when symptoms started. (and it's still anecdotal, it just swings the other way.)
you suggested that the pharmaceutical industry might be engaged in a massive coverup.
They're certainly capable. Has one taken place? I don't know. They have motive. It's not enough for any kind of decision, but I'm open to the idea. I'll wait to see if anyone claims evidence.
You seem to be under the impression that this is wacky and impossible.
... an unethical doctor with massive conflicts of interest and airhead former playboy models...
Instead what I'm doing is pointing out that all the messengers are unethical, uneducated, or quacks, and can't be relied on to be right about the question in point.
Am I supposed to laugh or cry?
Oh, and it is still ad hominem. If every round-worlder were an idiot, it would make the world no less round. Attacking every messenger does not absolve you from faulty logic.
If a vaccine prevented a disease that kills 1 in 100 kids who are infected, but the vaccine kills 1 in 10 million. The vaccine should be given out to everyone.
That is horribly oversimplified.
You also need to look at rates of infection, "at risk" groups, and other forms of vaccination for the same disease. There are people who are at greater risk of autism than others. If these vaccines are a contributing factor, there may be people for whom this is not the best solution.
Autism is on the rise as rates of "retardation" are dropping. Ever thought those two facts might be connected?
Yes. Besides, Knara beat you to it.
I was supporting the argument I was getting ready to make: "These companies do make mistakes." and pointed out a bad batch of H1N1 nasal vaccinations. Continued here.