Lynx is also available under cygwin (http://www.cygwin.com/) worth having just for a bash prompt in my book.
I don't expect every site to cater to MY browser, but it sure does annoy me when a site works ONLY in some specific setup.
Kudos to you for being aware of the issues.
The advantage of Lynx is that you can be fairly sure that if a site is usable with it then it's usable with any browser.
Also there maybe legal obligations, eg in the UK: http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/#part3.
(Text only browsers being used by the visually impaired.)
IANAL etc.
if you wanted purty, you wouldn't be using Lynx in the first place.:)
If I wanted to be at the mercy of another's aesthetic I'd be using IE.;)
Radio 4 isn't TV, though.:)
Good thing too.
You can't have Horizon type filler (background music, soft focus test-tubes every five minutes) on the radio, they actually have to *say* something.
I used to like Material World, unfortunately I work now.
Radio 4's problem is that many of its programmes give the impression of being aimed at middle-England, middle-aged, middle-of-the-road types. These are the types of rabid, letter-writing "core" listeners to the station that make those in charge fearful of change.
I sort of view them like the house of lords, Daily Mail reading reactionary kooks to a man, but they stop the worst excesses of Blairite reform.
The You and Your Moneyboxes are the stones under which the really interesting things scuttle.
Alan Moore's worship of an ancient Roman sock puppet snake god springs to mind.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/chainreaction.s html
If you want to hear *really* conservative radio try daytime Radio 1.
Don't get me wrong; there is a place for popular science, but not as a replacement for serious stuff. I wish it would replace those endless shitty lifestyle programs that don't actually *teach* you anything.
Honestly, Paxman is brilliant, but I could have interviewed Bill Gates better than that. (and that's saying something)
Have you seen him on University Challenge?
Someone confuses Aeschylus and Sophocles and he sneers.
Someone takes a guess in a sci/tech question, "err, entropy... increases", and he greets it with bewildered awe.
Learned helplessness in action.
The same can be said to a degree with astrology. The stars and planets go through cycles and even something as simple as one's birthday does influence them and their behavior.
There may be corellation but what about causality?
Personally I feel obliged to maintain my "elegance, charm and good taste" in order to keep venus in orbit.
Urgh, I was asserting the priniciple and then you go and get all socratic on me and make me chunk down. Thanks.
Do earnings count technically as profit?
Isn't it just selling time?
Profit is return - investment, so profit from work = wages - (subsistance costs + work related expenses)?
But I digress.
The principle, that gross disparities of wealth create gross disparities of political power (and that's a Bad Thing), doesn't touch on incentives. So a single maximum wage would seem to be in order.
As to a concrete figure I have no idea. But if I were to have the courage of my convictions I would have to say I earned to much (sub median uk).
For reference in the uk the goverment decides most doctors wages, ~£82,000ukp for a consultant.
I'm tempted to say that any power structure one is subject to one should have a democratic say in.
But that would include the economy and the economy is global implying a global government and that would just be flamebait.
I don't believe in the sanctity of property intelectual or otherwise they have to be justified with reference to more basic values.
Once you accept that some level of profit is obscene, it opens up the question "obscene according to whom?" And usually the implication is that the person writing (or their government) should decide what is an "acceptable" level of profit.
Money is power.
The limits of individual power should be decided democratically.
So yes you're right, I'm a socialist *because* I'm a democrat.
I didn't say that the US is the best at making money, therefore most environmentally friendly. What I said was that the US produces 35% of the product, with 25% of the energy. That's productivity.
Okay, my crude distortion of your argument was a reflection of my discomfort with your quantification of productivity.
If an Indian doctor treats 100 people and gets $1000 and a US doctor treats the same number and gets $500,000 this makes the american $499,000 more productive? (-IANAEconomist)
Developed economies tend towards the service sector which is less energy consuming.
If you said that "the US produces 35% of manufactured goods, with 25% of the energy" I would be more convinced by the point.
What really raised my hackles was your equation of productivity in dollars and how much it "help[s] other humans live".
Balanced and thoughtful comment Doc, you must be new here!
Of the $30T produced annually on Earth, over $10T is produced in the USA. That's something like 35% of production, from 5% of the people, using only 25% of the energy. The numbers are big, but actually show that the USA leads the world in responsible production
IANAEconomist but
"the calculation of both capital productivity and total factor productivity are dependent on a number of doubtful assumptions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity
Going from the "US are the best at making money" to "the US are the most environmentaly friendly" will take more argument to persuade me.
China and India mask their per-capita pollution numbers with hundreds of millions of people who produce little pollution, but who don't help other humans live much at all.
Conversly hundreds of millions of people in India and China get no benefit from US polution but still have to endure the consequences.
why should someone who works at McDonalds serving hamburgers make a profit?
A wage isn't profit, you exchange your time for money at the market (or legaly specified) rate.
Just as when you buy a burger you exchange money for it.
You would only make a profit when you exchange the burger for something worth more that the original cost.
When you work there McDonalds make a profit off you!
Actually the left is antinuclear in Europe as well
True, for historical reasons. The anti nuclear *power* sentiment is a byproduct of the anti nuclear *weapons* sentiment.
s/sentiment/industry/g
What left at the bottom of the (oil) barrel is a glowing rod of plutonium. Due to years of government subsidy of the technology.
The left believes in centralization and the right in decentralization, supposedly.
You think with an american accent. Most lefties wouldn't define it that way. A rough characterisation of a leftist postion might be:
You should have (some) control over your life.
Work is part (a big part) of your life.
Therefore you should have control over your work.
The market in practice concentrates (undemocratic) power in the hands of the few. One way of giving workers some control is through (democratic) state intervention.
But, you're not thinking... you're ALREADY an Adobe customer. Why would they bother to port to Linux for you, and everybody else that says, "If I had Photoshop on Linux, I'd use Linux"? What do they stand to gain?
Wouldn't windows users moving to Linux have to buy a new copy?
H
>>right next to the $1.99 Wal-ynol is a $4.99 bottle of Tylenol. It's the same medicine, but somehow people are convinced the name brand is better.
This is supposed to endear us to these people?
I think Bill Hicks put is best:
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself."
"they're only looking at the first page of esults," [...] "That's why people are wanting to get their results on the first page"
Will this kind of behaviour result in information oligopolies/archies?
There will be a small number of dominant sites that people get in searches and then link to increasing thier pageranks.
You dont' see blacksmiths hauling in large sums of cash or whatever.
Apparently they do, it's a scarce skill and people with horses these days have too much money anyway.
I'm sure they were against cars back in the day.
I'm against cars now. Voter Nader!
Slashdot Mirror
I would describe anything he's ever said as "immortal."
You misunderestimate him.
Kudos to you for being aware of the issues.
The advantage of Lynx is that you can be fairly sure that if a site is usable with it then it's usable with any browser.
Also there maybe legal obligations, eg in the UK: http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/#part3.
(Text only browsers being used by the visually impaired.)
IANAL etc.
If I wanted to be at the mercy of another's aesthetic I'd be using IE.
What you don't have Lynx installed?!
You must be a web designer.
Version 2.8.4rel.1 - Status line:
--> http://www.p%D0%B0ypal.com/
--> Alert!: Unable to connect to remote host.
Was it just me who pasted that link to check for dodgy characters?h p?application=firefox&version=1.0&os=Windows&categ ory=Privacy%20and%20Security)
(https://update.mozilla.org/extensions/showlist.p
I think my tin foil hat is plotting against me.
From jewwatch.com:
JEW WATCH FEATURE: IS POPE JOHN-PAUL II JEWISH?
Now I'm wondering if bears actually suck up shit into their arse when they're in the woods?
Good thing too.
You can't have Horizon type filler (background music, soft focus test-tubes every five minutes) on the radio, they actually have to *say* something.
I used to like Material World, unfortunately I work now.
I sort of view them like the house of lords, Daily Mail reading reactionary kooks to a man, but they stop the worst excesses of Blairite reform.
The You and Your Moneyboxes are the stones under which the really interesting things scuttle.
Alan Moore's worship of an ancient Roman sock puppet snake god springs to mind.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/chainreaction.
If you want to hear *really* conservative radio try daytime Radio 1.
Someone confuses Aeschylus and Sophocles and he sneers.
Someone takes a guess in a sci/tech question, "err, entropy
Learned helplessness in action.
http://mnenhy.mozdev.org/
Translates
D0n'+ 40r63+ +0 p4y y00r $699 \1c3n51n6 433, y00 c0ck-5m0k1n6 +3484663rz!!!!
to:
Don't aorget to pay yoor sgqq \lcenslng aee, yoo cock-smoklng teabaggerziiii
Vg nyfb qbrf ebg13
Personally I feel obliged to maintain my "elegance, charm and good taste" in order to keep venus in orbit.
Urgh, I was asserting the priniciple and then you go and get all socratic on me and make me chunk down. Thanks.
Do earnings count technically as profit? Isn't it just selling time?
Profit is return - investment, so profit from work = wages - (subsistance costs + work related expenses)?
But I digress.
The principle, that gross disparities of wealth create gross disparities of political power (and that's a Bad Thing), doesn't touch on incentives. So a single maximum wage would seem to be in order.
As to a concrete figure I have no idea. But if I were to have the courage of my convictions I would have to say I earned to much (sub median uk).
For reference in the uk the goverment decides most doctors wages, ~£82,000ukp for a consultant.
I'm tempted to say that any power structure one is subject to one should have a democratic say in. But that would include the economy and the economy is global implying a global government and that would just be flamebait.
I don't believe in the sanctity of property intelectual or otherwise they have to be justified with reference to more basic values.
Money is power.
The limits of individual power should be decided democratically.
So yes you're right, I'm a socialist *because* I'm a democrat.
That's nineteen pounds, nineteen shillings and six pence.
Predecimalisation (1971) £1 = 20 shillings 1 shilling = 12 pence.
So that's six pence short.
I didn't say that the US is the best at making money, therefore most environmentally friendly. What I said was that the US produces 35% of the product, with 25% of the energy. That's productivity.
Okay, my crude distortion of your argument was a reflection of my discomfort with your quantification of productivity.
If an Indian doctor treats 100 people and gets $1000 and a US doctor treats the same number and gets $500,000 this makes the american $499,000 more productive? (-IANAEconomist)
Developed economies tend towards the service sector which is less energy consuming.
If you said that "the US produces 35% of manufactured goods, with 25% of the energy" I would be more convinced by the point.
What really raised my hackles was your equation of productivity in dollars and how much it "help[s] other humans live".
Of the $30T produced annually on Earth, over $10T is produced in the USA. That's something like 35% of production, from 5% of the people, using only 25% of the energy. The numbers are big, but actually show that the USA leads the world in responsible production
IANAEconomist but Going from the "US are the best at making money" to "the US are the most environmentaly friendly" will take more argument to persuade me.
China and India mask their per-capita pollution numbers with hundreds of millions of people who produce little pollution, but who don't help other humans live much at all.
Conversly hundreds of millions of people in India and China get no benefit from US polution but still have to endure the consequences.
they can monitor everything they want, but it will be in vein
An intravenous bugging device?!
They've found out about my tin foil hat!
why should someone who works at McDonalds serving hamburgers make a profit?
A wage isn't profit, you exchange your time for money at the market (or legaly specified) rate.
Just as when you buy a burger you exchange money for it.
You would only make a profit when you exchange the burger for something worth more that the original cost.
When you work there McDonalds make a profit off you!
>> Refridgerators: Keep the refridgerator section at between 2C and 5C (36 to 42 F,)
>I'm always suspicious of people who think they're too good for spellcheckers.
That's Canadian spelling you insensitive clot!
What would Jesus run?
Actually the left is antinuclear in Europe as well
True, for historical reasons. The anti nuclear *power* sentiment is a byproduct of the anti nuclear *weapons* sentiment.
s/sentiment/industry/g
What left at the bottom of the (oil) barrel is a glowing rod of plutonium. Due to years of government subsidy of the technology.
The left believes in centralization and the right in decentralization, supposedly.
You think with an american accent. Most lefties wouldn't define it that way. A rough characterisation of a leftist postion might be:
You should have (some) control over your life.
Work is part (a big part) of your life.
Therefore you should have control over your work.
The market in practice concentrates (undemocratic) power in the hands of the few. One way of giving workers some control is through (democratic) state intervention.
The state is a mechanism NOT a policy.
H
But, you're not thinking... you're ALREADY an Adobe customer. Why would they bother to port to Linux for you, and everybody else that says, "If I had Photoshop on Linux, I'd use Linux"? What do they stand to gain?
Wouldn't windows users moving to Linux have to buy a new copy?
H
>>right next to the $1.99 Wal-ynol is a $4.99 bottle of Tylenol. It's the same medicine, but somehow people are convinced the name brand is better.
This is supposed to endear us to these people?
I think Bill Hicks put is best:
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself."
"they're only looking at the first page of esults," [...] "That's why people are wanting to get their results on the first page"
Will this kind of behaviour result in information oligopolies/archies?
There will be a small number of dominant sites that people get in searches and then link to increasing thier pageranks.
You dont' see blacksmiths hauling in large sums of cash or whatever.
Apparently they do, it's a scarce skill and people with horses these days have too much money anyway.
I'm sure they were against cars back in the day.
I'm against cars now. Voter Nader!