Note: I am not familiar with several of the programs you mention. As such, I am only responding to the specific points you raise rather than evaluating the product as a whole.
The shifted layout for window controls in iTunes is definitely stupid. (I never realized this occurred because I don't use that layout. Thanks for pointing it out.)
iWeb is presented as a single "document" within its interface, with the entire web page being the document you're working on. The presentation is justifiable because the pages are all interrelated. Having each page count as a separate document alters the use case of the program. For instance: when you create new pages, iWeb automatically inserts a link to that page on the "table of contents" of other pages. This behavior would be completely out of place in a document-based interface, as the app would edit unopened documents. If iWeb was designed for professionals I would agree with you. As a consumer product, their design choice makes sense.
On the other hand, Apple designed Terminal for a highly technical audience. This audience routinely runs multiple shells simultaneously, and so the interface becomes document oriented by necessity. That said, I believe that terminal is one of the worst designed programs on OS X.
I agree with your sentiments concerning Garage Band. That behavior is inconsistent at best.
As far as brushed metal is concerned: I dislike its use at all. However, after reading the relevant portion of the HIG, I understand why there are two different interfaces. Considering the set of brushed apps I am familiar with, I would say that only Safari doesn't fit the mold. IMHO, Safari should use Unified. It is not a single-window app; it does not replicate a 'real' device; and it doesn't provide access to a peripheral. Plus Unified looks better.
Hopefully, though, we can agree that the interface is far better than windows;)
The lack of consistancy for what the green window size button does is fustrating. Even Apple's own software fails to consistantly follow their own UI guidelines. Again, for example, a few applications quit entirely when you close the window while the majorty close the window but the program continue to run.
If the user changes a window's size or location by at least 7 pixels, the new size and location is the user state.The user can toggle between the standard state and the user state by clicking the zoom button. When the user clicks the zoom button of a window in the user state, your application should first determine the appropriate size of the standard state. Move the window as little as possible to make it the standard size, and keep the entire window on the screen. The zoom button should not cause the window to fill the entire screen unless that was the last state the user set.
and
In most cases, applications that are not document-based should quit when the main window is closed. For Example, System Preferences quits if the user closes the window. If an application continues to perform some function when the main window is closed, however, it may be appropriate to leave it running when the main window is closed. For example, iTunes continues to play when the user closes the main window.
Many parts of the Mac user experience seem inconsistent. However, this usually results from a user's previous OS experience (and, occasionally, third-party apps). My personal pet peeve is the lack of command-direction support in Terminal. Annoying? definitely. Inconsistent? no (albeit for different reasons than discussed above).
I'll leave enterprise support out of my discussion, as I'm not qualified to discuss it. I'd love to use a Mac at work, though.
I disagree. As an example, your sentence above may be interpreted two ways:
The interpretation errors you speak of are grammar errors.
All interpretation errors are grammar errors.
These examples, by their very existence, contradict the latter option. To refute the first, let me me explain how I dissected the problem:
There are three stages of execution*: lexing, parsing, interpreting. Lexing identifies tokens (e.g. spelling), parsing gives order to the tokens (grammar), and interpreting gives meaning to the tokens (definition).
I ignored the lexical error, because the OP was talking about grammar.
In English, you need not follow a number with units (the sentence remains structurally sound). As parsers merely determine this structure, the error cannot occur during parsing.
This leaves only the interpretation step left.
Another way to describe my reasoning: Although this particular example requires units, the necessity of that construct is only indicative after you know the meaning of the other words in the sentence.
Further note that in my post above, I was "playing loose" with the language myself--I used 'Thread' and 'Grammar' in a punning context, and the post itself fits with the false analogies rampant on Slashdot. (Maybe I should have used a car to make it more obvious). In addition, the all-too-serious tone of the post contradicts the absurd analogy noted above, in a style reminiscent of Monty Python's John Cleese.
Long story short: Maybe it wasn't funny, but it was a joke.
* Optimization could also be included, but it is superfluous. When performed properly, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
I believe time dilation in The Matrix can be fully justified by two elements, one artistic/thematic, and the other practical.
Thematic: Over the course of the movie, the audience begins to anticipate 'moments of awesome'. It also seems to 'fit' the computer environment, (see: cyberpunk).
Practical: This breaks down into several 'sub-elements'.
The movement of a hacker versus a human wouldn't be as pronounced if the footage was full speed. (In fact, several audience members may miss it completely.) You wouldn't even be able to see neo at the end of the movie.
It would have been difficult for the audience to determine what was actually happening.
It puts the speed of both Neo and the agents into perspective. You see normal people (police) move compared to a hacker. A hacker (Morpheus) compared to an agent (Smith), and finally Super Neo in relation to the agents (with various scenes in between).
When The Matrix was released, camerawork like that had never been used before. It generated tons of press.
I haven't seen Passion of the Christ, but Mel Gibson is a clown... so I won't comment.;)
Once someone dies (indirectly) due to the feeding of Cefquinome to cattle, then we initiate the multi-billion dollar lawsuit. Financially bleed the scum until the scum wishes that it were dead.
I say this without ill nor trollish intentions: You, sir, are an idiot. Allowing the use of Cefquinome in industrial cattle production creates bacteria highly resistant to the antibiotic. By the time someone dies due to these circumstances, the problem is already out of control. So, not only would we keep the problems with present tort law, but we add to it the problem of the newly evolved superbug.
I believe the OP was ripping on the school for the lack of units associated with "15".
I wouldn't call that a grammar error, as missing identifiers tend to cause interpretation (rather than lexical or parsing) errors. The errant parties likely invoked human dwimming when they executed the sentance. Unfortunately, they are using their own forked nightlies of English, and Slashdot dwimming hasn't caught up yet.
Even so, you can see the Slashdot dwimming engine attempting to compensate in another branch of the thread, above. Several candidates have been identified: minutes, sentances, words, and libraries of congress (to name a few).
Obviously, the slashbots require fine-tuning when it comes to the Californian educational system's dialect of English.
Political theory designates the Madisonian Republic (the government of the US) as a form of democracy. Likewise, parlimentary republics may also be called democracies. Justification: these republics form a subset of representative democracies, whereby the public directly or indirectly elects officials to represent their interests within a legislative body. That legislative body is responsible for creating (and, in the parliamentary model, executing) laws in accordance with the interests of the public.
Note, however, that a republic merely designates a government whose power is derived from the people (usually through social compact). The effect of this being that while the Madesonian model requires a republican government to exist, the parliamentary model does not. For more information concerning this, one could compare the UK's Magna Carta to the Federal Constitution of the USA. The Constitution derives its powers from the people ("We the people..."), while Magna Carta defines rights granted to the people from the monarch. Both are democracies, but the UK is not (by definition) a republic.
You may have intended to mean that the US federal government is not a direct democracy, but what you said is a far cry from that interpretation.
What if there existed some maniachal, penny-pinching company that felt it "made cents" to change its prices to land on *.97 after tax? They'd be making 2.5 cents per deal, which begins to stack up after millions of transactions.
Without a prediction the hypothesis is useless. The whole point of creating hypothesis and theory is so we can make predictions.
Science concerns itself with the search for objective truth. Scientists construct hypotheses as tools to search for the truth. A prediction, within this context, functions merely as another tool: one that lends credibility to the hypothesis. When a hypothesis attains a certain threshold of credibility, it becomes a theory--something that science considers a reasonable approximation of truth.
From this perspective, the predictive capacity of a theory is merely a useful side effect of its expression of truth. Because science doesn't concern itself with the useful- or uselessness of its hypotheses (only the truthfulness of the hypothesis), your assertion that a hypothesis requires predictive capacity is errant. Science can and does use other means of verifying hypotheses, such as logical deduction and induction (within the field of computer science, for instance).
Not only that, but the GGP explicitly said "Science (is) about making predictions" which completely nullifies your argument. What he said makes absolutely no sense regardless of how much you try to nitpick the grammar.
And now I go back and read your OP--the one he replied to... and can't make sense of his post either. Fun argument though;)
It doesn't matter if the prediction is right about past or future events. What matters is that if the hypothethis correctly predicted the outcome, it gains credence.
Note the grammatical differences between uses of the word "predict". In the first sentence, the GP was talking about an accurate prediction (prediction as noun). In the second, he referenced a credible hypothesis (prediction as verb). In the first case, science only cares about the prediction in itself--this gives an aire of fortune-telling to a rational process. In the second, he uses established scientific terminology, thus giving the stigma of rationality & empiricism to the predictive process. This, in effect, shifts responsibility from the 'ephemeral' prediction to the 'concrete' hypothesis.
Long story short: In science, predictions are poppycock; they function only to assert the validity of a hypothesis.
Apple computers with AppleCare protection come with TechTool Deluxe on the AppleCare recovery disk. This tool repairs problems with the file system, among a suite of other hardware diagnostics.
"Erase free space utilitiy" - TechTool Pro provides this functionality. I don't believe it exists on the default Mac bundle, but I may be wrong.
Backup utils: I agree that this is problematic on the Mac, but will be fixed with 10.5 (Time Machine). This doesn't fix the problem now, but is likely to be discussed at Macworld. I'm not well versed with systems administration, so I don't know what you mean by disk sets. If you are talking about RAID, mac supports striping, mirroring, and JBOD. Third party software exists for RAID 5.
Defragmentor app: also handled by TechTool Pro. Honestly, though, fragmentation isn't much of a problem on modern Macs. One, the filesystem keeps itself sane in the background. Furthermore, SATA drives (standard on a Mac) use instruction reordering to optimize read performance. Since I have never used XServe, I can't speak for that.
Funny. cos' I thought a troll was a large, ugly, stupid hominid with regenerative capabilities and a 10 foot reach. Gets to be a pain, because PCs, usually medium hominids, suffer 2 attacks of opportunity before they get within melee range of this beast... unless they are using a pole arm. *shoots self*
Concerning Professor Yoo's argument: I agree that it confuses network neutrality with "hosting neutrality". The network proximity of a particular host does change the latency for transactions involving that host, but doesn't change the topology or behavior of the network that it operates on. (i.e. it doesn't change the "common carrier" status afforded to a particular ISP).
This does open up one aspect of network neutrality that I hadn't thought of though. Would it violate network neutrality for a service provider (not an ISP) to create their own network "behind" the internet that distributes content faster than using the Internet?
An example: Imagine Google dropping off proxies that, network wise, are more "local" to their users than their main servers. When users connect to the proxy, it forwards the message to Google's main servers using the "dark fiber" that Google bought long ago. A diagram to aid understanding.
And then the question that stems from this: If it's ok for Google to do it, is it also an acceptable practice for ISPs to offer the same service? Note that the only difference is the presence of the "dark net" (by which I mean the dark fiber owned by Google, not the traditional definition).
I imagine that this, effectively, circumvents net neutrality. Down the line, it may lead to the same effect as net privatization, because those that could pay for the privilege of the "darknet" would have a greater opportunity to speak. However, it would create two "zones" for ISPs, instead of just the common carrier line. In the "dark zone", ISPs do not have common carrier status. Thus, they may choose which signals cross the line. In addition, they are legally responsible for all content that goes across the line (they may be sued for DMCA & obscenity violations, etc). In the "Internet zone" they still have common carrier. They must allow all communications, but they gain legal protection from those signals' contents.
It should go without saying that only "dark" content could go through the dark zone. Otherwise, an ISP could control free speech by directing content through the dark zones that it manages. Furthermore, an ISP's dark zone, to function within the context of this idea, must utilize the Internet at its end points, and it should not segregate traffic originating from foreign ISPs. This way, if I have Earthlink wifi in San Francisco, Verizon DSL cannot prevent me from connecting to their dark zone, nor create routes that limits the use, and thus effective benefits, to only Verizon's customers. This should occur for several reasons:
It stimulates competition by creating an environment where independent dark zone providers can compete for the same service. Furthermore, if the dark zone were only accessible to customers of the ISP that runs it, then it is an effective monopoly. Why? because Internet services would need to pay each ISP to ensure the best service to their customers. In other words, this stipulation commodifies the service.
Commodification increases the diversity of services, as Mr. Yoo pointed out. Special networks could be created to handle specific content: Google could pay for a Jabber/SIP network; AOL and YouTube could utilize networks tailored to streaming media. Other networks may feature exceedingly high bandwidth for massive file transfers (e.g. backups & mirroring). Online video games may utilize low-latency networks, etc. In a sense, some of these uses already exist: Microsoft Live!, Google's dark fiber, and (at least partially) Internet2. Furtherm
There was one part of this move that I really enjoyed: The portrayal of someone really into writing their code. When I complete a significant portion of a project, I celebrate. From time to time, I also spin around in my chair and clap my hands like an ape.
So, I guess my point boils down to this: Jackman portrayed being a computer dork rather accurately;)
And I believe this even though the visualization of code was entirely unrealistic. Aside: That gives me an idea... Someone should write a program that has the little blocks fall into place as a project compiles. It would be useless, but so is xeyes.
a couple reasons: 1) Education does not give Indians a better chance to change their lives; the competition for employment is just as fierce even after you have an education. 2) The statement wreaks of cultural imperialism, assuming that a hand to mouth existence is not liked by any Indians. I did make an assumption, however, that hand-to-mouth meant an absence of modern living: running water, literacy, and consumerism in general. If the AC I replied to meant "starving poverty", than this assumption was incorrect.
India emphasizes their education far more than America does, and it isn't because individuals need "a better chance of [sic] escaping a truly hand to mouth style existence," albeit that does comprise one facet of their culture. Their perspective stems far through history, before British imperialism, and included one of the first known "public schools", the Gurukul.
The Gurukul is a cross between a school and a home. Students would leave their families and move in to the Gurukul to learn from the teacher who lived there, a Guru. By the time a student left, they were as an adult--capable of caring for themselves and others in the wider world. In return for this knowledge, students would perform chores, such as taking care of cows [1]. Another interesting phenomenon was the egalitarian nature of the Gurukul [2]. No matter your station in life, you were equal upon arrival.
The Indian education system reaches even farther back, albeit not in a formal manner. Before the Gurukul, there existed an oral tradition, "Guru-shishya". In English terms, this roughly means teacher-student. Even though it lacked a definitive focus--be it spiritual, physical, or mental--developments occurred within the context of spirituality, specifically that of Hinduism [3].
Many of the teachings of Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism further emphasize the role of education in India, particularly when evaluated with a postmodern perspective [4]. Each of these religions places a heavy emphasis on self-exploration, ethics, and spiritual awareness. To keep this at least somewhat brief, I will limit the topic to the most well known religion, Hinduism.
Early Hinduism was taught by rote in the Guru-shishya style. The Vedas collected these teachings, also known as mantra, in four texts containing a structured and codified set of instructions for practicing Hinduism [5]. (Think something akin to Leviticus in the Old Testament). The importance of these texts, as far as this response is concerned, lies mostly within the context for how they were taught. Even so, the ritualism seen within the Vedas may explain India's (like Japan's) current obsession with testing and memoriozed knowledge.
Partly in response to the rigidity of the Veda's, the Upanishads[6] were formed, and later included within the former texts. These books, of which there are 108, contain the "meat and potatoes" of Hinduism, so to speak. They are the most well known books, containing the majority of philosophy and poetry within Hindu texts, as well as serving as the foundation for the modern religion.
The importance of the Upanishads shines through when one considers the manner of their creation. Over several centuries, Gurus analyzed the Vedas, and later the Upanishads themselves and derived "the argument of Hinduism". Argument, in this case, is meant in the rational sense, albeit there are several debates within the texts themselves. The first Upanishads were annotated by Adi Shankara, a Vedanta philosopher[7], who travelled across India teaching and debating the philosophy underlying the Vedas.
The predominant method of teaching in India at this point was the Gurukul, which Shankara entered at age 5. Shankara's Guru encouraged him to write his first commentary on the Upanishads and travel across India as a philosopher. To do this, not only did Shankara need to be educated, but so did his audience. The mission would have been lost without a thorough knowledge of the Vedas, let alone an absence of critical thought--he would have no one to debate. And yet, he did find opponents, such as Mandana Mishra and Vyasa [8].
Before his death at age 32, Shankara established several Vedanta schools across India. These schools practiced more than religion--they also "gave equal importance to the personal experience of the student. Logic, grammar, Mimamsa [investigation] and allied subjects form main areas of study in all the Vedanta schools,"[9]. And this occurred during the 8th century--about mid-way through the European dark ages. Europe
It's not like you're surviving either way, so why not run the det cord directly out your ass? For explosives that require blasting caps, use a similar setup, but place one cap in each condom.
Holding that much explosive in your colon has got to cause some blockage, though. If you are dead set on carrying this shit out, you'd better pack some Metamucil too. (Please pardon the variety of puns in that last sentence).
I believe the parent was referring not to mothers, but to criminals when he said "Do you seriously not see the difference between taking the life of a grown human with their own personality and experiences and capability to act independently". Note: The statement, within context, could apply to any "grown human".
We can still blame the managers for their ignorance. From the Paradigm Shift link you posted:
The phrase has been abused in "marketing speak", and is often considered a meaningless buzzword in this context. This is now so widespread that Larry Trask lists it in his book Mind The Gaffe as a phrase never to use, and he advises caution when reading anything that contains this phrase.
Better idea: release commercials as regular videos, and let your users rank and tag them as usual. Put some on the front page as featured content, etc. This will do 2 things:
1) Your users automatically "target" their own advertising.
2) The company who placed advertising can track how well the ad did, then refocus future ads to their audience. YouTube could offer more detailed statistics for "advertising" accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
Note: I am not familiar with several of the programs you mention. As such, I am only responding to the specific points you raise rather than evaluating the product as a whole.
The shifted layout for window controls in iTunes is definitely stupid. (I never realized this occurred because I don't use that layout. Thanks for pointing it out.)
iWeb is presented as a single "document" within its interface, with the entire web page being the document you're working on. The presentation is justifiable because the pages are all interrelated. Having each page count as a separate document alters the use case of the program. For instance: when you create new pages, iWeb automatically inserts a link to that page on the "table of contents" of other pages. This behavior would be completely out of place in a document-based interface, as the app would edit unopened documents. If iWeb was designed for professionals I would agree with you. As a consumer product, their design choice makes sense.
On the other hand, Apple designed Terminal for a highly technical audience. This audience routinely runs multiple shells simultaneously, and so the interface becomes document oriented by necessity. That said, I believe that terminal is one of the worst designed programs on OS X.
I agree with your sentiments concerning Garage Band. That behavior is inconsistent at best.
As far as brushed metal is concerned: I dislike its use at all. However, after reading the relevant portion of the HIG, I understand why there are two different interfaces. Considering the set of brushed apps I am familiar with, I would say that only Safari doesn't fit the mold. IMHO, Safari should use Unified. It is not a single-window app; it does not replicate a 'real' device; and it doesn't provide access to a peripheral. Plus Unified looks better.
Hopefully, though, we can agree that the interface is far better than windows ;)
Just a nitpick: Apple's programs do follow their HIG. From Apple Human Interface Guidelines: Window Behavior:
andMany parts of the Mac user experience seem inconsistent. However, this usually results from a user's previous OS experience (and, occasionally, third-party apps). My personal pet peeve is the lack of command-direction support in Terminal. Annoying? definitely. Inconsistent? no (albeit for different reasons than discussed above).
I'll leave enterprise support out of my discussion, as I'm not qualified to discuss it. I'd love to use a Mac at work, though.
I disagree. As an example, your sentence above may be interpreted two ways:
These examples, by their very existence, contradict the latter option. To refute the first, let me me explain how I dissected the problem:
Another way to describe my reasoning: Although this particular example requires units, the necessity of that construct is only indicative after you know the meaning of the other words in the sentence.
Further note that in my post above, I was "playing loose" with the language myself--I used 'Thread' and 'Grammar' in a punning context, and the post itself fits with the false analogies rampant on Slashdot. (Maybe I should have used a car to make it more obvious). In addition, the all-too-serious tone of the post contradicts the absurd analogy noted above, in a style reminiscent of Monty Python's John Cleese.
Long story short: Maybe it wasn't funny, but it was a joke.
* Optimization could also be included, but it is superfluous. When performed properly, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
I believe time dilation in The Matrix can be fully justified by two elements, one artistic/thematic, and the other practical.
I haven't seen Passion of the Christ, but Mel Gibson is a clown... so I won't comment. ;)
I say this without ill nor trollish intentions: You, sir, are an idiot. Allowing the use of Cefquinome in industrial cattle production creates bacteria highly resistant to the antibiotic. By the time someone dies due to these circumstances, the problem is already out of control. So, not only would we keep the problems with present tort law, but we add to it the problem of the newly evolved superbug.
Or, possibly, you were being facetious...
I believe the OP was ripping on the school for the lack of units associated with "15". I wouldn't call that a grammar error, as missing identifiers tend to cause interpretation (rather than lexical or parsing) errors. The errant parties likely invoked human dwimming when they executed the sentance. Unfortunately, they are using their own forked nightlies of English, and Slashdot dwimming hasn't caught up yet. Even so, you can see the Slashdot dwimming engine attempting to compensate in another branch of the thread, above. Several candidates have been identified: minutes, sentances, words, and libraries of congress (to name a few). Obviously, the slashbots require fine-tuning when it comes to the Californian educational system's dialect of English.
Political theory designates the Madisonian Republic (the government of the US) as a form of democracy. Likewise, parlimentary republics may also be called democracies. Justification: these republics form a subset of representative democracies, whereby the public directly or indirectly elects officials to represent their interests within a legislative body. That legislative body is responsible for creating (and, in the parliamentary model, executing) laws in accordance with the interests of the public. Note, however, that a republic merely designates a government whose power is derived from the people (usually through social compact). The effect of this being that while the Madesonian model requires a republican government to exist, the parliamentary model does not. For more information concerning this, one could compare the UK's Magna Carta to the Federal Constitution of the USA. The Constitution derives its powers from the people ("We the people..."), while Magna Carta defines rights granted to the people from the monarch. Both are democracies, but the UK is not (by definition) a republic. You may have intended to mean that the US federal government is not a direct democracy, but what you said is a far cry from that interpretation.
What if there existed some maniachal, penny-pinching company that felt it "made cents" to change its prices to land on *.97 after tax? They'd be making 2.5 cents per deal, which begins to stack up after millions of transactions.
Well, what do you expect? If I had to fix the users' mistakes before lunch, I'd be working all day. Fuckin' n00bs.
Science concerns itself with the search for objective truth. Scientists construct hypotheses as tools to search for the truth. A prediction, within this context, functions merely as another tool: one that lends credibility to the hypothesis. When a hypothesis attains a certain threshold of credibility, it becomes a theory--something that science considers a reasonable approximation of truth.
From this perspective, the predictive capacity of a theory is merely a useful side effect of its expression of truth. Because science doesn't concern itself with the useful- or uselessness of its hypotheses (only the truthfulness of the hypothesis), your assertion that a hypothesis requires predictive capacity is errant. Science can and does use other means of verifying hypotheses, such as logical deduction and induction (within the field of computer science, for instance).
And now I go back and read your OP--the one he replied to... and can't make sense of his post either. Fun argument though ;)
Note the grammatical differences between uses of the word "predict". In the first sentence, the GP was talking about an accurate prediction (prediction as noun). In the second, he referenced a credible hypothesis (prediction as verb). In the first case, science only cares about the prediction in itself--this gives an aire of fortune-telling to a rational process. In the second, he uses established scientific terminology, thus giving the stigma of rationality & empiricism to the predictive process. This, in effect, shifts responsibility from the 'ephemeral' prediction to the 'concrete' hypothesis.
Long story short: In science, predictions are poppycock; they function only to assert the validity of a hypothesis.
simple. add -1 astroturf to the /. modding system. ;)
Funny. cos' I thought a troll was a large, ugly, stupid hominid with regenerative capabilities and a 10 foot reach. Gets to be a pain, because PCs, usually medium hominids, suffer 2 attacks of opportunity before they get within melee range of this beast... unless they are using a pole arm. *shoots self*
Concerning Professor Yoo's argument: I agree that it confuses network neutrality with "hosting neutrality". The network proximity of a particular host does change the latency for transactions involving that host, but doesn't change the topology or behavior of the network that it operates on. (i.e. it doesn't change the "common carrier" status afforded to a particular ISP).
This does open up one aspect of network neutrality that I hadn't thought of though. Would it violate network neutrality for a service provider (not an ISP) to create their own network "behind" the internet that distributes content faster than using the Internet?
An example: Imagine Google dropping off proxies that, network wise, are more "local" to their users than their main servers. When users connect to the proxy, it forwards the message to Google's main servers using the "dark fiber" that Google bought long ago. A diagram to aid understanding.
And then the question that stems from this: If it's ok for Google to do it, is it also an acceptable practice for ISPs to offer the same service? Note that the only difference is the presence of the "dark net" (by which I mean the dark fiber owned by Google, not the traditional definition).
I imagine that this, effectively, circumvents net neutrality. Down the line, it may lead to the same effect as net privatization, because those that could pay for the privilege of the "darknet" would have a greater opportunity to speak. However, it would create two "zones" for ISPs, instead of just the common carrier line. In the "dark zone", ISPs do not have common carrier status. Thus, they may choose which signals cross the line. In addition, they are legally responsible for all content that goes across the line (they may be sued for DMCA & obscenity violations, etc). In the "Internet zone" they still have common carrier. They must allow all communications, but they gain legal protection from those signals' contents.
It should go without saying that only "dark" content could go through the dark zone. Otherwise, an ISP could control free speech by directing content through the dark zones that it manages. Furthermore, an ISP's dark zone, to function within the context of this idea, must utilize the Internet at its end points, and it should not segregate traffic originating from foreign ISPs. This way, if I have Earthlink wifi in San Francisco, Verizon DSL cannot prevent me from connecting to their dark zone, nor create routes that limits the use, and thus effective benefits, to only Verizon's customers. This should occur for several reasons:
That would be Cthulhu.
There was one part of this move that I really enjoyed: The portrayal of someone really into writing their code. When I complete a significant portion of a project, I celebrate. From time to time, I also spin around in my chair and clap my hands like an ape.
So, I guess my point boils down to this: Jackman portrayed being a computer dork rather accurately ;)
And I believe this even though the visualization of code was entirely unrealistic. Aside: That gives me an idea... Someone should write a program that has the little blocks fall into place as a project compiles. It would be useless, but so is xeyes.
a couple reasons:
1) Education does not give Indians a better chance to change their lives; the competition for employment is just as fierce even after you have an education.
2) The statement wreaks of cultural imperialism, assuming that a hand to mouth existence is not liked by any Indians. I did make an assumption, however, that hand-to-mouth meant an absence of modern living: running water, literacy, and consumerism in general. If the AC I replied to meant "starving poverty", than this assumption was incorrect.
India emphasizes their education far more than America does, and it isn't because individuals need "a better chance of [sic] escaping a truly hand to mouth style existence," albeit that does comprise one facet of their culture. Their perspective stems far through history, before British imperialism, and included one of the first known "public schools", the Gurukul.
The Gurukul is a cross between a school and a home. Students would leave their families and move in to the Gurukul to learn from the teacher who lived there, a Guru. By the time a student left, they were as an adult--capable of caring for themselves and others in the wider world. In return for this knowledge, students would perform chores, such as taking care of cows [1]. Another interesting phenomenon was the egalitarian nature of the Gurukul [2]. No matter your station in life, you were equal upon arrival.
The Indian education system reaches even farther back, albeit not in a formal manner. Before the Gurukul, there existed an oral tradition, "Guru-shishya". In English terms, this roughly means teacher-student. Even though it lacked a definitive focus--be it spiritual, physical, or mental--developments occurred within the context of spirituality, specifically that of Hinduism [3].
Many of the teachings of Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism further emphasize the role of education in India, particularly when evaluated with a postmodern perspective [4]. Each of these religions places a heavy emphasis on self-exploration, ethics, and spiritual awareness. To keep this at least somewhat brief, I will limit the topic to the most well known religion, Hinduism.
Early Hinduism was taught by rote in the Guru-shishya style. The Vedas collected these teachings, also known as mantra, in four texts containing a structured and codified set of instructions for practicing Hinduism [5]. (Think something akin to Leviticus in the Old Testament). The importance of these texts, as far as this response is concerned, lies mostly within the context for how they were taught. Even so, the ritualism seen within the Vedas may explain India's (like Japan's) current obsession with testing and memoriozed knowledge.
Partly in response to the rigidity of the Veda's, the Upanishads[6] were formed, and later included within the former texts. These books, of which there are 108, contain the "meat and potatoes" of Hinduism, so to speak. They are the most well known books, containing the majority of philosophy and poetry within Hindu texts, as well as serving as the foundation for the modern religion.
The importance of the Upanishads shines through when one considers the manner of their creation. Over several centuries, Gurus analyzed the Vedas, and later the Upanishads themselves and derived "the argument of Hinduism". Argument, in this case, is meant in the rational sense, albeit there are several debates within the texts themselves. The first Upanishads were annotated by Adi Shankara, a Vedanta philosopher[7], who travelled across India teaching and debating the philosophy underlying the Vedas.
The predominant method of teaching in India at this point was the Gurukul, which Shankara entered at age 5. Shankara's Guru encouraged him to write his first commentary on the Upanishads and travel across India as a philosopher. To do this, not only did Shankara need to be educated, but so did his audience. The mission would have been lost without a thorough knowledge of the Vedas, let alone an absence of critical thought--he would have no one to debate. And yet, he did find opponents, such as Mandana Mishra and Vyasa [8].
Before his death at age 32, Shankara established several Vedanta schools across India. These schools practiced more than religion--they also "gave equal importance to the personal experience of the student. Logic, grammar, Mimamsa [investigation] and allied subjects form main areas of study in all the Vedanta schools,"[9]. And this occurred during the 8th century--about mid-way through the European dark ages. Europe
It's not like you're surviving either way, so why not run the det cord directly out your ass? For explosives that require blasting caps, use a similar setup, but place one cap in each condom.
Holding that much explosive in your colon has got to cause some blockage, though. If you are dead set on carrying this shit out, you'd better pack some Metamucil too. (Please pardon the variety of puns in that last sentence).
Or, have voters fill out the ballots with pen or marker.
I believe the parent was referring not to mothers, but to criminals when he said "Do you seriously not see the difference between taking the life of a grown human with their own personality and experiences and capability to act independently". Note: The statement, within context, could apply to any "grown human".
Democrats are every bit in the pockets of the "big aristocracy" as the Republicans.
Better idea: release commercials as regular videos, and let your users rank and tag them as usual. Put some on the front page as featured content, etc. This will do 2 things: 1) Your users automatically "target" their own advertising. 2) The company who placed advertising can track how well the ad did, then refocus future ads to their audience. YouTube could offer more detailed statistics for "advertising" accounts.
Another nitpick: the HUD appears every time you close the window. I have since grown to like it, but is there an option to close it permanently?