Please. A screen only has so many pixels, and you only have so much input. The main UI paradigms primarily in use today were initially developed so far back that the original hardware was several orders of magnitude slower than the network bandwidth we have today. It's true that piping 4k images in real time eats a ton of bandwidth, but high display resolution is pretty much the only network hurdle. Every other UI behavior can operate in human-sense realtime.
Yeah, I guess the 2-3 extra lines to support XMLHttpRequest on i.e. are a pain. It just doesn't seem like something to throw up your arms and give up on, like say the box model was in IE 6.
By attempting to inject openness into an intentionally closed ecosystem, do you see yourself as an enabler to that closed ecosystem?
That is to say, open standards are the default on modular personal computers, and almost invariably not present on video game consoles. By giving people who want flexibility a means to use consoles, do you see yourself as inflating those markets and doing long-term harm to actual open systems?
IE 9 is not very far from standards compliance, in any sort of pragmatic sense. I usually don't have to worry about CSS/javascript issues causing problems anymore when I develop code for websites(because I ignore IE 7 and before).
Amusing over-extension of the metaphor, but the original intention of the description was that of pulling/pushing people, so I prefer to liken it to being shoved right off a cliff.
I interpret it literally because there are fundamental scientific principles at work here, like convection, and the carbon cycle, which humans have not demonstrated any capacity to overcome in any sort of pragmatic sense.
Your attitude treats the market like a magic wand that you wave and *poof* no more serious real-world problems.
Yeah, at some point recentyish Google crossed into completely unlikable territory. While that might drive technically adept people away, their momentum and existing user base can be mined for as much money as possible in the meantime. 10 years ago google was awesome. Today, I wouldn't bat an eye if they got wiped from the face of the planet.
Oh, yes, please point me at the regulations that tell farmers to use non-therapeutic doses of antibiotics on their animals to make them grow a little bigger. Please. Absolutely, do it. I'll recant my position in 10 milliseconds flat.
In this case the "commons" are literally our own bodies and the ecosystems they interact with. Are you suggesting some sort of absurd enclosure movement for air so that bacterial genes can't spread from one place to another? Or are you being an absurd believer in a system for no other reason than your outward facing political philosophy depends on it?
We had a half a percent higher profit margin on cattle for a couple decades. That's totally worth having permanent incurable deadly diseases. Tragedy of the commons sucks balls, and time and again, it turns out that the "invisible hand" won't develop any solution to it.
You're arguing for the rights of pedophiles to abuse minors against the protection of children. How can you possibly think that's a valid interpretation of basic human rights?
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I just default in my head to nice little 2d pictures.
You know what, that's 4 times too big, used diameter for radius. I accept any shame heaped upon me.
Well, it's less than half the density of water.
Bitcoin value isn't attached to anything.
Just short-sell bitcoins when it goes away again.
I'll worry about that when my data-center is on Mars.
Please. A screen only has so many pixels, and you only have so much input. The main UI paradigms primarily in use today were initially developed so far back that the original hardware was several orders of magnitude slower than the network bandwidth we have today. It's true that piping 4k images in real time eats a ton of bandwidth, but high display resolution is pretty much the only network hurdle. Every other UI behavior can operate in human-sense realtime.
Yeah, I guess the 2-3 extra lines to support XMLHttpRequest on i.e. are a pain. It just doesn't seem like something to throw up your arms and give up on, like say the box model was in IE 6.
Because there's some threshold of insurance payout that will cure an incurable disease?
By attempting to inject openness into an intentionally closed ecosystem, do you see yourself as an enabler to that closed ecosystem?
That is to say, open standards are the default on modular personal computers, and almost invariably not present on video game consoles. By giving people who want flexibility a means to use consoles, do you see yourself as inflating those markets and doing long-term harm to actual open systems?
And what do any of those do to promote the particular situation with anti-biotics. That's a flimsy excuse that doesn't hold any water.
That's not what anti-biotic treatments of farm animals do. So... all the reasoning the follows that premise is wrong.
IE 9 is not very far from standards compliance, in any sort of pragmatic sense. I usually don't have to worry about CSS/javascript issues causing problems anymore when I develop code for websites(because I ignore IE 7 and before).
Amusing over-extension of the metaphor, but the original intention of the description was that of pulling/pushing people, so I prefer to liken it to being shoved right off a cliff.
I interpret it literally because there are fundamental scientific principles at work here, like convection, and the carbon cycle, which humans have not demonstrated any capacity to overcome in any sort of pragmatic sense.
Your attitude treats the market like a magic wand that you wave and *poof* no more serious real-world problems.
Yeah, at some point recentyish Google crossed into completely unlikable territory. While that might drive technically adept people away, their momentum and existing user base can be mined for as much money as possible in the meantime. 10 years ago google was awesome. Today, I wouldn't bat an eye if they got wiped from the face of the planet.
I wasn't suggesting totalitarianism as an alternative. I don't know what might lead you to think that.
Oh, yes, please point me at the regulations that tell farmers to use non-therapeutic doses of antibiotics on their animals to make them grow a little bigger. Please. Absolutely, do it. I'll recant my position in 10 milliseconds flat.
In this case the "commons" are literally our own bodies and the ecosystems they interact with. Are you suggesting some sort of absurd enclosure movement for air so that bacterial genes can't spread from one place to another? Or are you being an absurd believer in a system for no other reason than your outward facing political philosophy depends on it?
Maybe. There's always, if you press hard enough, something that qualifies as a gray area. But that's just begging, which is different.
We had a half a percent higher profit margin on cattle for a couple decades. That's totally worth having permanent incurable deadly diseases. Tragedy of the commons sucks balls, and time and again, it turns out that the "invisible hand" won't develop any solution to it.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that that was the only problem.
Ok, I get it, you think you're capable of rational logic, but others aren't. Aren't we special.
Sorry. There's a difference between me not necessarily being wise about my sexual indiscretions, and a 5 year old having no idea what's going on.
There is such a thing as childhood. This shouldn't be a point of debate. At all.
You're arguing for the rights of pedophiles to abuse minors against the protection of children. How can you possibly think that's a valid interpretation of basic human rights?