Science works, but not everybody who thinks they're accepting scientific results really are.
Yes, that certainly isn't a rationalization for not believing in scientific results or anything! Definitely not exactly what the article is talking about!
Nope, that article as about you, and you alone. It was quite specific about that. It is about denying the results of science, because you don't want to agree with them.
Once again, I am not doing that! I am happy to accept scientific results of all kinds!
You're not, though. You're the one accusing science of not working.
I'm not sure I can discern any difference in quality whatsoever between the stuff kdawson posts and the stuff the rest of the "editors" post. Looks like the exact same kind of crap across the board to me.
You're the one saying that they want to use h.264 to prevent free software from competing. And when they let free software use h.264 for free, that is somehow the problem?
Your argument is just a little hard to follow here.
That way, you get something that is passable. You don't get something that looks really good. The whole point of having a specialized app for something like the iPad is that you can tweak the layout exactly as you want it for a known display.
What if iPhone Firefox had a built-in Flash viewer that would be activated only after the software were approved, e.g. with a datebomb or visiting a secret website that would not be available until "everyone" had the app installed? This could be the crowbar move to get Apple moving with Flash after everyone sees how wonderful it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has been trying to launch the "stuff Windows on a tablet" machine for the better part of a decade now. It has failed again and again.
Then the iPad was launched and succeeded wildly.
You know, perhaps it is understandable why people would try to draw certain conclusions from these facts.
So now we're down to you not understanding the English language.
Good job there.
Science works, but not everybody who thinks they're accepting scientific results really are.
Yes, that certainly isn't a rationalization for not believing in scientific results or anything! Definitely not exactly what the article is talking about!
No. The scale of the energy from a nuclear explosion is completely different from conventional weapons.
Still trying to rationalize it away, huh.
Nope, that article as about you, and you alone. It was quite specific about that. It is about denying the results of science, because you don't want to agree with them.
Once again, I am not doing that! I am happy to accept scientific results of all kinds!
You're not, though. You're the one accusing science of not working.
The lady doth protest too much.
In other words, you have nothing to respond with.
Fact remains: You are denying the results of science, I am not.
Actually, it is not about "everybody". It is about people who deny scientific results. Personally, I am not doing any of that.
...or that the "scientific consensus" on global warming can never be challenged...
I like how you read an article about yourself and never once realized it was about you.
I'm not sure I can discern any difference in quality whatsoever between the stuff kdawson posts and the stuff the rest of the "editors" post. Looks like the exact same kind of crap across the board to me.
You didn't read what I replied to either, did you?
You're the one saying that they want to use h.264 to prevent free software from competing. And when they let free software use h.264 for free, that is somehow the problem?
Your argument is just a little hard to follow here.
Did you read the post I was actually replying to? Unlike the last three people? I can't quite tell.
That way, you get something that is passable. You don't get something that looks really good. The whole point of having a specialized app for something like the iPad is that you can tweak the layout exactly as you want it for a known display.
Uh, magazines are some of the things with the fanciest layouts around?
I mean, really, is it *so hard* to create an online magazine?
Yes. Yes, it is. HTML is just not up to the task of doing fancy layout.
Jesus, what is it with Slashdot today? Is nobody capable of following a discussion?
Go to my post, click "Parent":
What if iPhone Firefox had a built-in Flash viewer that would be activated only after the software were approved, e.g. with a datebomb or visiting a secret website that would not be available until "everyone" had the app installed? This could be the crowbar move to get Apple moving with Flash after everyone sees how wonderful it is.
Because it takes a long time to prepare. They did start preparing this right away. It was only ready now.
And relief wells don't collect oil from the same reserve. They intersect the original well and fill it up with mud from the bottom.
You too: Go read the post I am replying to.
Please at least make the effort to read the post I am replying to, OK?
Why exactly would Mozilla be interested in helping a commercial company push their proprietary technology?
Both Microsoft and Apple offer h.264 playing, for free, that Mozilla can use without any legal problems.
It is Mozilla's own choice to not take advantage of that offer, and to throw a monkey-wrench into their own machinery.
If it did, it would break a lot of functionality for me. Real-world usage always trumps consistency for consistency's sake.
Yes, I am sure Linux's huge market share on the desktop is keeping them up at night.
Yes, this is why they provide free h.264 playing facilities in their OSes, which can be used by free software without paying anyone.
That makes perfect sense.