There is not one solution. Some people pay attention to everything and want a ton of tiny targets so that every task can be accomplished in one click. Other people want the 3 most common tasks instantly available, and the rest hidden behind a contextual menu so that deviation from routine forces a moment of thought before acting, decreasing the likelihood of making a mistake. Neither of those perspectives is wrong.
The changes Avner talked about in that forum post from November 15th, 2010? They were made in a firmware update distributed in December.
Have you heard anything about this product in the last two months? I'm not a fanboy, but it's hard not to come off that way when you're basically saying, "I heard you can't sync an iPod on Windows."
Can XBMC index a TV show that is available for streaming online, by episode, with episode summaries? Is there a repository of information on available TV shows?
I'm not being facetious, I really want to know. Last time I tried XBMC I couldn't figure out how to show metadata for my ripped movies and shows, and I definitely couldn't figure out how to stream flash videos. I didn't spend a lot of time on it, since I was running it on an Atom pc with a GMA945 integrated video, which sucked.
I was going to say, I can't imagine Barcade going out of business. Maybe coin-op games don't make enough money for NYC rents by themselves, but overpriced beer does, and the games get them in the door.
Oh, I don't think it's bad, I just found it funny for someone to comment on how Debian seems current. Such a thing could only ever happen within a week of a release.
I use Gentoo on my desktop. It works great, but it's kind of a pain in the ass if you don't upgrade packages regularly. I just moved, and I was only using my laptop for about 6 weeks. When I tried to upgrade, I got all kinds of dependency hell. It wasn't too hard to get everything resolved, but it seemed unnecessary.
Debian cares, and it's their job to care. You should probably read the release notes before you upgrade between major versions.
I think the best way to draw attention to hardware that doesn't function without non-free drivers and firmware is to have a distribution that will take a principled stand against including such software. That way, you can try to install Debian on a computer and know exactly what is supported by free software.
You get prions into animal muscle by feeding them brain and other nervous tissue. If you're just growing the muscle, and you're controlling what goes into it, there's no way to get prions in there.
I don't know about selling labmeat to fast food chains. Didn't you hear people freaking out about Taco Bell "meat" not containing things other than meat? And that is the chain with food that least resembles its ingredients.
Plessy said that requiring separate facilities is fine as long as you try hard to make them equal. Brown said that separate facilities are necessarily unequal. This is not a practical question, where if everyone had tried harder to make their facilities equal, the decision would have gone the other way. This is a philosophical question, and the conclusion was that the separate nature makes them unequal, regardless of how formally equal you can make them.
If you really think that these represent identical, original interpretations of equal protection, I don't know what else to say.
Also, Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education were decided on the same question of equal protection, and the latter overruled the former. Which one was based on the original interpretation of the 14th amendment, the one that was handed down 28 years after ratification, or the one handed down 86 years after?
They fired Juan Williams for being an asshole. He broke their code of conduct and tried to maintain two parallel careers: one on NPR where he was a sober centrist, and one on Fox News where he was a black liberal who somehow agreed with everything the conservative hosts said. NPR didn't want someone who thinks everyone should feel nervous if they see a muslim at the airport. I don't blame them, and they have every right to fire someone for advocating racism.
I think the point of highlighting Republicans adding earmarks is that a lot of them claim to support an earmark ban, so it's relevant that they added a bunch of earmarks. I'd like to see your source for 99% of the earmarks being from Democrats, though; that doesn't pass the smell test.
I'm saying that claiming NPR is pushing a "Liberal Agenda" is total bullshit made up by conservatives. Also, conservatives constantly lie about what liberals think, for example claiming that we want to take all religion out of public life.
But really, what I mean is that the phrase "Liberal Agenda" is a red flag, and tells my brain to prepare for a volley of bullshit, because no one who actually wanted to talk reasonably about current events or politics would ever say that. Specifically, referring to Obama, Reid and Democrats generally as "liberals" sounds so dumb to liberals that it makes it hard to respond to anything you said.
"the liberal agenda" is conservative agitprop. You're going to have to give me some examples if you want to show that NPR and PBS are doing something more than appealing to liberals.
Thanks, I am perfectly aware of what conservatives and libertarians mean when they say "big government." I just think their philosophies are incoherent.
The United States of America was the bare minimum compromise that could get the agreement of most of the state delegations. It's full of bullshit. What's the justification for representing states rather than people? What's the justification for bicameralism? It was a compromise between more and less democratic visions of republican governance, so they could get the less populous states on board.
I understand that the Constitution says things, and we have to follow them. That doesn't mean they are good ideas. That's why I'm talking about political philosophy. Is there a first-principles justification for federalism?
What is the justification for states having rights? Tradition is not an argument; it is an excuse.
*****
It doesn't matter what crazy interpretation I can come up with; it matters what the Supreme Court justices think. They, however, are people, and as such, their opinion on interpretation can be informed by things other than what the founders thought. This is fine. Our Constitution sets out a process, and as long as something follows that process, it has some legitimacy.
Where in the Constitution does it say we can only interpret it the way the writers did, anyway?
That's all well and good, if you think that the abstract principle of non-intervention in commerce is more important than a campaign of state and state-sanctioned violence against black people who were so audacious as to try to vote or go to the store or walk around or drive a car.
The police were doing wrong in the guise of protecting rights. You can't protect all of everybody's rights at the same time though. You can either violently defend rights from people who want to live a normal life, or you can defend those people's right to live a normal life.
Again, you are talking about prioritizing one person's rights over another person's, just because the first one has property and political power. That is the opposite of the reason we have a government.
Don't tell too many people you're a slave because you're not allowed to keep black people out of your store though.
And I think your understanding of "big government" is silly. The whole concept of "States' Rights" exists because the Constitution as originally written left states themselves unconstrained, for the most part. What is the philosophical justification for allowing one level of government to abuse people in a way that another level of government is prohibited? I don't believe there is one; I think your objections are pragmatic, which means we're not talking about abstract principle anymore. You're talking about government action you like vs. action you don't like. Action you don't like tends to come from the federal level, and the federal government is the most constrained, but action you do like tends to come from the state and local level, which is less constrained.
If we're talking about political philosophy, either the state has some power or the state does not have that power. There's no first-principles reason to even have federalism, just a pragmatic one.
*****
All I'm saying about Constitutional interpretation is that most sentences don't have only one clear canonical meaning. The meaning of words changes over time, and pieces of text do as well. If we literally refuse to consider any meaning outside of the understanding of the authors of the Constitution's minds, how can we decide any legal questions that require knowledge outside their narrow frames?
For example, what did "general welfare" mean to them, and what does it mean to us? I bet those are very different things.
Can the federal government regulate the practice of medicine? The Constitution doesn't say it can, but I would say that falls under "general welfare." Another person might disagree. James Madison probably had different ideas.
The point is that language doesn't work like that, and restricting ourselves to a 220-year-old interpretation of language is at least as silly as trying to understand an old document through a modern lens.
Slashdot Mirror
did you really asterisk out "crap?"
There is not one solution. Some people pay attention to everything and want a ton of tiny targets so that every task can be accomplished in one click. Other people want the 3 most common tasks instantly available, and the rest hidden behind a contextual menu so that deviation from routine forces a moment of thought before acting, decreasing the likelihood of making a mistake. Neither of those perspectives is wrong.
The changes Avner talked about in that forum post from November 15th, 2010? They were made in a firmware update distributed in December.
Have you heard anything about this product in the last two months? I'm not a fanboy, but it's hard not to come off that way when you're basically saying, "I heard you can't sync an iPod on Windows."
And when the hell did it become totally acceptable to release a shitty product with the promise that it would become "okay" later on?
I don't like it either, but that's how it works now that we can upgrade firmware online. See also: the Orange Box for XBox 360.
Can XBMC index a TV show that is available for streaming online, by episode, with episode summaries? Is there a repository of information on available TV shows?
I'm not being facetious, I really want to know. Last time I tried XBMC I couldn't figure out how to show metadata for my ripped movies and shows, and I definitely couldn't figure out how to stream flash videos. I didn't spend a lot of time on it, since I was running it on an Atom pc with a GMA945 integrated video, which sucked.
I heard the Boxee box was more or less a bait and switch making it impossible to add local sources.
Where the fuck did you hear that?
I was going to say, I can't imagine Barcade going out of business. Maybe coin-op games don't make enough money for NYC rents by themselves, but overpriced beer does, and the games get them in the door.
Oh, I don't think it's bad, I just found it funny for someone to comment on how Debian seems current. Such a thing could only ever happen within a week of a release.
Yeah, but he also says stuff like "pain-in-the-rump." Who cares what he thinks?
The new version seems current, but it probably won't in a year and a half, when it will likely still be the current version.
I use Gentoo on my desktop. It works great, but it's kind of a pain in the ass if you don't upgrade packages regularly. I just moved, and I was only using my laptop for about 6 weeks. When I tried to upgrade, I got all kinds of dependency hell. It wasn't too hard to get everything resolved, but it seemed unnecessary.
Debian cares, and it's their job to care. You should probably read the release notes before you upgrade between major versions.
I think the best way to draw attention to hardware that doesn't function without non-free drivers and firmware is to have a distribution that will take a principled stand against including such software. That way, you can try to install Debian on a computer and know exactly what is supported by free software.
You get prions into animal muscle by feeding them brain and other nervous tissue. If you're just growing the muscle, and you're controlling what goes into it, there's no way to get prions in there.
I don't know about selling labmeat to fast food chains. Didn't you hear people freaking out about Taco Bell "meat" not containing things other than meat? And that is the chain with food that least resembles its ingredients.
Wrong. My car loan is denominated in dollars, so dollars are backed by 1981 Chevy Novas.
"Democrat Party" is another red flag that tells me I'm trying to argue with a fucking numbskull.
Plessy said that requiring separate facilities is fine as long as you try hard to make them equal. Brown said that separate facilities are necessarily unequal. This is not a practical question, where if everyone had tried harder to make their facilities equal, the decision would have gone the other way. This is a philosophical question, and the conclusion was that the separate nature makes them unequal, regardless of how formally equal you can make them.
If you really think that these represent identical, original interpretations of equal protection, I don't know what else to say.
Also, Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education were decided on the same question of equal protection, and the latter overruled the former. Which one was based on the original interpretation of the 14th amendment, the one that was handed down 28 years after ratification, or the one handed down 86 years after?
They fired Juan Williams for being an asshole. He broke their code of conduct and tried to maintain two parallel careers: one on NPR where he was a sober centrist, and one on Fox News where he was a black liberal who somehow agreed with everything the conservative hosts said. NPR didn't want someone who thinks everyone should feel nervous if they see a muslim at the airport. I don't blame them, and they have every right to fire someone for advocating racism.
I think the point of highlighting Republicans adding earmarks is that a lot of them claim to support an earmark ban, so it's relevant that they added a bunch of earmarks. I'd like to see your source for 99% of the earmarks being from Democrats, though; that doesn't pass the smell test.
I'm saying that claiming NPR is pushing a "Liberal Agenda" is total bullshit made up by conservatives. Also, conservatives constantly lie about what liberals think, for example claiming that we want to take all religion out of public life.
But really, what I mean is that the phrase "Liberal Agenda" is a red flag, and tells my brain to prepare for a volley of bullshit, because no one who actually wanted to talk reasonably about current events or politics would ever say that. Specifically, referring to Obama, Reid and Democrats generally as "liberals" sounds so dumb to liberals that it makes it hard to respond to anything you said.
"the liberal agenda" is conservative agitprop. You're going to have to give me some examples if you want to show that NPR and PBS are doing something more than appealing to liberals.
I hope this isn't devolving into a rant about how postmodernism means that nothing has any meaning.
Thanks, I am perfectly aware of what conservatives and libertarians mean when they say "big government." I just think their philosophies are incoherent.
The United States of America was the bare minimum compromise that could get the agreement of most of the state delegations. It's full of bullshit. What's the justification for representing states rather than people? What's the justification for bicameralism? It was a compromise between more and less democratic visions of republican governance, so they could get the less populous states on board.
I understand that the Constitution says things, and we have to follow them. That doesn't mean they are good ideas. That's why I'm talking about political philosophy. Is there a first-principles justification for federalism?
What is the justification for states having rights? Tradition is not an argument; it is an excuse.
*****
It doesn't matter what crazy interpretation I can come up with; it matters what the Supreme Court justices think. They, however, are people, and as such, their opinion on interpretation can be informed by things other than what the founders thought. This is fine. Our Constitution sets out a process, and as long as something follows that process, it has some legitimacy.
Where in the Constitution does it say we can only interpret it the way the writers did, anyway?
That's all well and good, if you think that the abstract principle of non-intervention in commerce is more important than a campaign of state and state-sanctioned violence against black people who were so audacious as to try to vote or go to the store or walk around or drive a car.
The police were doing wrong in the guise of protecting rights. You can't protect all of everybody's rights at the same time though. You can either violently defend rights from people who want to live a normal life, or you can defend those people's right to live a normal life.
Again, you are talking about prioritizing one person's rights over another person's, just because the first one has property and political power. That is the opposite of the reason we have a government.
Don't tell too many people you're a slave because you're not allowed to keep black people out of your store though.
*makes wanking sign with hand*
And I think your understanding of "big government" is silly. The whole concept of "States' Rights" exists because the Constitution as originally written left states themselves unconstrained, for the most part. What is the philosophical justification for allowing one level of government to abuse people in a way that another level of government is prohibited? I don't believe there is one; I think your objections are pragmatic, which means we're not talking about abstract principle anymore. You're talking about government action you like vs. action you don't like. Action you don't like tends to come from the federal level, and the federal government is the most constrained, but action you do like tends to come from the state and local level, which is less constrained.
If we're talking about political philosophy, either the state has some power or the state does not have that power. There's no first-principles reason to even have federalism, just a pragmatic one.
*****
All I'm saying about Constitutional interpretation is that most sentences don't have only one clear canonical meaning. The meaning of words changes over time, and pieces of text do as well. If we literally refuse to consider any meaning outside of the understanding of the authors of the Constitution's minds, how can we decide any legal questions that require knowledge outside their narrow frames?
For example, what did "general welfare" mean to them, and what does it mean to us? I bet those are very different things.
Can the federal government regulate the practice of medicine? The Constitution doesn't say it can, but I would say that falls under "general welfare." Another person might disagree. James Madison probably had different ideas.
The point is that language doesn't work like that, and restricting ourselves to a 220-year-old interpretation of language is at least as silly as trying to understand an old document through a modern lens.