Whenever you see "in the CLOUD!", mentally replace it with "using someone else's server" -- all of a sudden it looks a whole lot less appealing.
I'm not an IT professional by any means, but to me that doesn't seem quite fair. Ideally, the server is being run by somebody with the resources and expertise to keep the server running better than you can yourself. It seems reasonable to me that this is the sort of thing that might benefit from outsourcing, if you're an individual or a small company, and so long as you take precautions.
Asimov and others predicted a future where there wouldn't be enough jobs to go aroundubt they saw that as a GOOD thing. Humanity was clever enough to build machines to do all the work, and now we can kick back and enjoy some leisure time. George Jetson had a three-hour workday. But that vision can only work if we view our increased productivity as a benefit to *everyone*, and compensate everyone accordingly: a dividend for being a member of the clever human race (or if you want, a dividend for being a citizen/resident of a first-world nation).
As more jobs are automated, it seems to me that there are three options: 1) we share the wealth, either with a guaranteed income or by raising wages while simultaneously cutting the number of hours people work; 2) we make a lot of fake jobs so that we can pretend that people are earning the money they need to live, and avoid the horrors of socialism (horror! horror!); or 3) a LOT of people drop into poverty.
I live in Slashdot's home country, and I've defined a feature phone as a phone that won't cause you to have to buy a data plan. The major U.S. CDMA2000 carriers (Verizon, Sprint, and Sprint-owned Boost and Virgin) refuse to on talk-and-text-only plans, and the U.S. GSM carrier with the best coverage (AT&T) will automatically add a data plan to a talk-and-text-only SIM if you insert it in a smartphone.
Good point. That's the reason I have an iPod Touch and a separate dumbphone (for which I pay ~$50/year).
Don't all of the broadcast companies also own cable channels? I'd think they would tell the cable companies "pull an Aereo and you don't get our cable channels anymore (or we'll just raise the price on our cable package to offset the lost broadcast fees".
I already had an alternative for years: my ISP. It has this free service where you login with your account, and pick [chosenname].go.ro - and that's it. Of course, some might consider it as rather limited but I think its more than fitting for a home user.
This really is the sort of service all ISPs should provide.
There's a difference between giving money to a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage, and supporting a ballot initiative to make it unconstitutional (not just illegal mind, but *unconstitutional*). I'm opposed to people getting drunk, but I wouldn't vote for prohibition.
A rose by a different name... is it really so important how you call something? A name should reflect its content, it's not content by itself.
Are you addressing the commenters who want to keep government "marriage", or the commenters who want to change it to "civil union"? Seems like your comment could go either way.
These are great ideas, and you'd probably get a lot more support for them if you didn't waste time looking for someone to blame, and pointing fingers at the people who may very well support your cause.
Google Chrome has a feature (or used to, I haven't used it for a while) that allows you to selectively block Javascript by domain. I find this to be a better approach -- everything is whitelisted by default and you selectively block the ones you don't like.
Malware writers like this approach, too, as it makes you more vulnerable to drive-bys.
NoScript requires a one-time click to allow a domain. I don't find this to be much of a burden. If it is for you, you can use "Allow all this page", which will permanently allow JavaScript for every domain the current page references.
I also prefer a whitelist to a blacklist. The problem with it, though, is that when you come to a broken website which is calling scripts from a dozen different domains, and you don't know which ones provide functionality and which ones are for tracking. In those cases, when I'm in a hurry, I usually "temporarily allow all" the domains at once (except those which I've already blocked of course)but even then, activating certain domains will then make other domains appear on the list, which I also have to activate and reload the site again. It is a hassle and potentially confusing to new users (or anybody who borrows my computer).
Today, more and more websites are designed in a such a way that disabling Javascript breaks them completely -- you literally get nothing but a blank page.
IMHO these websites are examples of bad design . Good design should fall back to plain html/css with ideally, minimum loss of functionality
Dynamic interactions with scripting languages are here right now and in use almost everywhere except old angelfire/geocities sites with the nice space backgrounds. You might find some hipster trying to make a point by making their site completely in html/css, but that is just a pathetic attempt at holding back innovation and progress.
I don't think the OP was suggesting we give up on dynamic websites; they said that websites should *fall back* to plain html/css with minimum loss of functionality. If your website defaults to a blank page with Javascript turned off, then yes that is bad design.
The AC does have a point: "creationism" (and "intelligent design") are potentially ambiguous terms to people who aren't engaged in the evolution debate. To us here (I assume), both terms refer to anti-evolution philosophies. To others, the terms may simply suggest that the universe was "created" and "intelligently designed" by a Creator, a belief which is in no way incompatible with evolution or science in general. It just feeds the false dichotomy of "religion vs science".
And they could host maker events and maker classes too. "Hey kids! Come this Saturday and learn how to build a robot!" How does that not bring in business?
If it's just a link to a website the way tiles normally work? And if the links go to reputable websites? I don't have a problem with Firefox asking Amazon for some money to put them on the front page. On the other hand, the tiles could be more like banner ads, flashy spammy things, controlled by a 3rd-party network where Mozilla doesn't have much control over what shows up there. That would suck.
The anti-evolution party wants to destroy public education anyway; they want your kids to be educated by corporations. They're glad you're getting the point.
No, but the IOC should, if they want the games to be a thing Americans still watch in 15-20 years. The FCC already failed when they allowed the anti-competitive Comcast/NBC merger in the first place.
This is what I'm wondering: the IOC depends on the goodwill of a watching public: there are people who never watch any type of sporting event except for the Olympics, because they feel like they should, partly because it's tradition, because everyone else is talking about it. If it's too difficult to watch for an increasing number of people, does the Olympics start losing its importance?
NoScript lets you selectively enable scripts from different domains. And that's the thing: it would be very easy for a website to bypass adblockers, if it simply hosted its own ads under its own domain. It's when websites rely on ad networks for ads and scripts and the like that makes ad-blocking feasible.
In my physics classes I use the rubber-sheet analogy to discuss electric fields as well as gravitational fields: it offers an alternative to the notion that the Earth is directly pulling on each of us individually or a positive charge is directly pushing on another positive charge, even when they're not touching. If you place a bowling ball in the middle of the rubber sheet (or blanket, which is what I use in class) and then roll a tennis ball by it, it's obvious that the bowling ball is not reaching out and pulling on the tennis ball, but the attraction of the two is a two-step process: the bowling ball distorts the sheet, and then the tennis ball reacts to that distortion.
The field description of forces works the same way: the Earth first creates its gravitational field (whether there's anything there to feel it or not), which is a distortion in spacetime, and then our bodies react to that field by feeling a force. The electric field can also be thought of in a similar way: a distortion of spacetime that causes positive charges to feel a force in one direction, and negative charges in the opposite direction.
These results, while interesting, don't ruin the analogy for that purpose.
I know nothing about UK law, but in the USA you have actually use a trademark for it to be valid. If they registered the mark in 2012, and still haven't used it in 2014, then they should be seen as squatters, not legitimate users of the mark.
If that were necessary, then the company would have simply thrown some crappy placeholder website and called it Pinterest. So it wouldn't have made much difference.
I hate lyrics sites, as they're often not accurate, and the sites themselves are rather skeevy. I really don't understand why bands (or their labels) don't post lyrics to their own sites? Or even better, put the lyrics in the MP3 files themselves, when they're sold! iTunes has a spot for lyrics, and it's ridiculous that I have to fill in that box myself, even when I purchase a song from the iTunes store (or anywhere else, for that matter).
I think the real problem is that scientists aren't lending any prestige to reproducing experiments so nobody bothers. Journals want to publish new results, not confirmation. Advisors discourage students from reproducing experiments, which makes sense since they won't be published.
It's not just about prestige, it's about cash. The NIH (etc) should offer grants for reproducing results, not just coming up with new ones.
Then again, it would help if the NIH offered more grant money, period. The sequester is killing American science.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever you see "in the CLOUD!", mentally replace it with "using someone else's server" -- all of a sudden it looks a whole lot less appealing.
I'm not an IT professional by any means, but to me that doesn't seem quite fair. Ideally, the server is being run by somebody with the resources and expertise to keep the server running better than you can yourself. It seems reasonable to me that this is the sort of thing that might benefit from outsourcing, if you're an individual or a small company, and so long as you take precautions.
Asimov and others predicted a future where there wouldn't be enough jobs to go aroundubt they saw that as a GOOD thing. Humanity was clever enough to build machines to do all the work, and now we can kick back and enjoy some leisure time. George Jetson had a three-hour workday. But that vision can only work if we view our increased productivity as a benefit to *everyone*, and compensate everyone accordingly: a dividend for being a member of the clever human race (or if you want, a dividend for being a citizen/resident of a first-world nation).
As more jobs are automated, it seems to me that there are three options: 1) we share the wealth, either with a guaranteed income or by raising wages while simultaneously cutting the number of hours people work; 2) we make a lot of fake jobs so that we can pretend that people are earning the money they need to live, and avoid the horrors of socialism (horror! horror!); or 3) a LOT of people drop into poverty.
I live in Slashdot's home country, and I've defined a feature phone as a phone that won't cause you to have to buy a data plan. The major U.S. CDMA2000 carriers (Verizon, Sprint, and Sprint-owned Boost and Virgin) refuse to on talk-and-text-only plans, and the U.S. GSM carrier with the best coverage (AT&T) will automatically add a data plan to a talk-and-text-only SIM if you insert it in a smartphone.
Good point. That's the reason I have an iPod Touch and a separate dumbphone (for which I pay ~$50/year).
The fact that you can have an addon like this in Firefox, is what makes me stick with Firefox. You can't move the tabs in Chrome at all.
Don't all of the broadcast companies also own cable channels? I'd think they would tell the cable companies "pull an Aereo and you don't get our cable channels anymore (or we'll just raise the price on our cable package to offset the lost broadcast fees".
Never does this interview tell who this guy is! Isn't that one of the basic who what when where why how questions? Like "who"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
There you go. :)
I already had an alternative for years: my ISP. It has this free service where you login with your account, and pick [chosenname].go.ro - and that's it. Of course, some might consider it as rather limited but I think its more than fitting for a home user.
This really is the sort of service all ISPs should provide.
There's a difference between giving money to a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage, and supporting a ballot initiative to make it unconstitutional (not just illegal mind, but *unconstitutional*). I'm opposed to people getting drunk, but I wouldn't vote for prohibition.
A rose by a different name... is it really so important how you call something? A name should reflect its content, it's not content by itself.
Are you addressing the commenters who want to keep government "marriage", or the commenters who want to change it to "civil union"? Seems like your comment could go either way.
These are great ideas, and you'd probably get a lot more support for them if you didn't waste time looking for someone to blame, and pointing fingers at the people who may very well support your cause.
Google Chrome has a feature (or used to, I haven't used it for a while) that allows you to selectively block Javascript by domain. I find this to be a better approach -- everything is whitelisted by default and you selectively block the ones you don't like.
Malware writers like this approach, too, as it makes you more vulnerable to drive-bys.
NoScript requires a one-time click to allow a domain. I don't find this to be much of a burden. If it is for you, you can use "Allow all this page", which will permanently allow JavaScript for every domain the current page references.
I also prefer a whitelist to a blacklist. The problem with it, though, is that when you come to a broken website which is calling scripts from a dozen different domains, and you don't know which ones provide functionality and which ones are for tracking. In those cases, when I'm in a hurry, I usually "temporarily allow all" the domains at once (except those which I've already blocked of course)but even then, activating certain domains will then make other domains appear on the list, which I also have to activate and reload the site again. It is a hassle and potentially confusing to new users (or anybody who borrows my computer).
Today, more and more websites are designed in a such a way that disabling Javascript breaks them completely -- you literally get nothing but a blank page.
IMHO these websites are examples of bad design . Good design should fall back to plain html/css with ideally, minimum loss of functionality
Dynamic interactions with scripting languages are here right now and in use almost everywhere except old angelfire/geocities sites with the nice space backgrounds. You might find some hipster trying to make a point by making their site completely in html/css, but that is just a pathetic attempt at holding back innovation and progress.
I don't think the OP was suggesting we give up on dynamic websites; they said that websites should *fall back* to plain html/css with minimum loss of functionality. If your website defaults to a blank page with Javascript turned off, then yes that is bad design.
So what you're saying is, rich people don't want to live anywhere Republicans are in charge? Makes sense to me.
The AC does have a point: "creationism" (and "intelligent design") are potentially ambiguous terms to people who aren't engaged in the evolution debate. To us here (I assume), both terms refer to anti-evolution philosophies. To others, the terms may simply suggest that the universe was "created" and "intelligently designed" by a Creator, a belief which is in no way incompatible with evolution or science in general. It just feeds the false dichotomy of "religion vs science".
And they could host maker events and maker classes too. "Hey kids! Come this Saturday and learn how to build a robot!" How does that not bring in business?
If it's just a link to a website the way tiles normally work? And if the links go to reputable websites? I don't have a problem with Firefox asking Amazon for some money to put them on the front page.
On the other hand, the tiles could be more like banner ads, flashy spammy things, controlled by a 3rd-party network where Mozilla doesn't have much control over what shows up there. That would suck.
The anti-evolution party wants to destroy public education anyway; they want your kids to be educated by corporations. They're glad you're getting the point.
No, but the IOC should, if they want the games to be a thing Americans still watch in 15-20 years. The FCC already failed when they allowed the anti-competitive Comcast/NBC merger in the first place.
This is what I'm wondering: the IOC depends on the goodwill of a watching public: there are people who never watch any type of sporting event except for the Olympics, because they feel like they should, partly because it's tradition, because everyone else is talking about it. If it's too difficult to watch for an increasing number of people, does the Olympics start losing its importance?
Or maybe that's all FUD on my part, I don't know.
...if it lets advertisers know how much ads piss me off.
You don't have to take the AP test to take the corresponding AP class. (And usually the AP classes are free, while the AP tests are definitely not.)
NoScript lets you selectively enable scripts from different domains. And that's the thing: it would be very easy for a website to bypass adblockers, if it simply hosted its own ads under its own domain. It's when websites rely on ad networks for ads and scripts and the like that makes ad-blocking feasible.
In my physics classes I use the rubber-sheet analogy to discuss electric fields as well as gravitational fields: it offers an alternative to the notion that the Earth is directly pulling on each of us individually or a positive charge is directly pushing on another positive charge, even when they're not touching. If you place a bowling ball in the middle of the rubber sheet (or blanket, which is what I use in class) and then roll a tennis ball by it, it's obvious that the bowling ball is not reaching out and pulling on the tennis ball, but the attraction of the two is a two-step process: the bowling ball distorts the sheet, and then the tennis ball reacts to that distortion.
The field description of forces works the same way: the Earth first creates its gravitational field (whether there's anything there to feel it or not), which is a distortion in spacetime, and then our bodies react to that field by feeling a force. The electric field can also be thought of in a similar way: a distortion of spacetime that causes positive charges to feel a force in one direction, and negative charges in the opposite direction.
These results, while interesting, don't ruin the analogy for that purpose.
I know nothing about UK law, but in the USA you have actually use a trademark for it to be valid. If they registered the mark in 2012, and still haven't used it in 2014, then they should be seen as squatters, not legitimate users of the mark.
If that were necessary, then the company would have simply thrown some crappy placeholder website and called it Pinterest. So it wouldn't have made much difference.
I hate lyrics sites, as they're often not accurate, and the sites themselves are rather skeevy. I really don't understand why bands (or their labels) don't post lyrics to their own sites?
Or even better, put the lyrics in the MP3 files themselves, when they're sold! iTunes has a spot for lyrics, and it's ridiculous that I have to fill in that box myself, even when I purchase a song from the iTunes store (or anywhere else, for that matter).
I think the real problem is that scientists aren't lending any prestige to reproducing experiments so nobody bothers. Journals want to publish new results, not confirmation. Advisors discourage students from reproducing experiments, which makes sense since they won't be published.
It's not just about prestige, it's about cash. The NIH (etc) should offer grants for reproducing results, not just coming up with new ones.
Then again, it would help if the NIH offered more grant money, period. The sequester is killing American science.