Personally I avoid myspace like the plague, but for particularly gaudy blogs, I use a handy little extension called Stylish, that gives you much finer-grained control over style: you can disable everything, or just what you want, and it can be controlled per domain, per page, per whatever, so you don't have to switch back and forth.
Under objective definitions, the distinction should be between "good judgement" and "bad judgement". But instead, you substitute the term "being judgemental". That is a step away from clarity. Why? Let us observe what it has accomplished. Sure enough, expressing moral judgement, even couched in "I think that..." instead of "You are..." is a surefire invitation for touchy hostility nowadays; "don't judge" is a nearly universal maxim.
I think his point in using those words (and it's a well-made point) is that we make judgemnets all the time: that they are useful and necessary, and that this is a good thing. Using "good" vs. "bad" in place of "good" vs. "irrational" (which is the distinction between the terms 'good judgement' and 'being judgemental') is the true departure from clarity.
His criteria for labelling 'good' and 'bad' are clear, and quite reasonable and practical. Yours are not. Good vs. bad can mean anything to anyone.
Your "nearly universal" maxim is taken out of context. Most people, upon reflection, will agree that it is wrong to judge someone arbitrarily (by refusing to consider all the factors involved). Please notice, that the statement itself is a type of judgement: that taking a certain action is wrong. If it can be shown that someone has done this, one would be right to condemn the action. If a pattern of justifiably condemnable actions is evident in an individual, it is good judgement to notice the pattern and act accordingly.
There's a lot to be said for being civil, but "political correctness" goes way beyond being civil. It's a political ideology that says of certain things "this is good" and therefore "things that contradict it are bad."
There are special groups of people whose values "ought not" to be questioned. If you criticize them, you must hate them.
The worst part about PC, is that it labels anyone who disagrees with its ideologies as irrational, and pre-judges their motives as hate.
Homosexuality is a good example in our current political environment. School kids are being taught that homosexuality is normal and healthy. There was no intelligent cultural discussion on this topic, it was simply asserted, and anyone who disagreed was pre-judged to hate homosexuals, or worse yet, to be afraid of them ('homophobic'). I'm not trying to start a homosexuality flame war. I'm pointing out the lack of an environment that fosters rational criticism in both directions, and I think the blame is shared.
Any ideology that labels all those who disagree with its conclusions as irrational will at best produce irrational proponents of its own philosophy in the majority of its constituents.
And what exactly is the point of a wireless keyboard?
My linux box serves (among other things) as the media machine, with its display hooked up to a projector in the living room. I'm not going to sit on the couch with the keyboard in my lap tethered to a box. The cable wouldn't be long enough to reach, and it would always be in the way no matter how long it was.
Does that justify the need for wireless keyboards/mice?
Not to seem pedantic here and all, but man is the only animal species that actually destroys ecosystems and causes the extincion of other species that are not in his food chain. We are also the only species that is incapable of existing in an ecological balance.
Ever hear of a beaver?
Anyway, just because we haven't reached "ecological balance" yet doesn't mean we won't. Every species upon entering an environment upsets the balance: the pendulum swings for a while, and then it settles. The pendulum is still on its first or second swing.
There's nothing inherantly wrong with humans being in a state of perpetual imbalance. The global ecosystem is constantly in flux. Change happens. Get over it. If we get to the point where earth can't sustain us, something will happen: population reduction/war/new sources of energy/new technology/interplanetary colonization (possibly all of these at once and more).
The one ecologically unique feature of humans is that we have the cognitive ability to know what we're doing and work out the ramifications of our actions (to a certain extent). If we don't have this ability in sufficient quantities, relax, we soon will, provided our first major lesson doesn't wipe out our record-keeping technologies or our species.
The irony is that if earth had no people, there would be no one to arbitrarily assign the label "good" to the "natural" (in this case, meaning untouched by humans) state of ecology.
He postulates alien visitors in 10,000 years coming and finding almost no evidence of us. What do you want to bet that the first thing they do is plop down a few mines and factories.
Sweet! A free planet!
If they have space ships, they have a great need for matereals to build them and fuel/parts for thier energy-gathering machines.
Schools have enough trouble keeping internet filters relevant to keep out adult material without dealing with viral wireless file sharing.
It's not viral: you can't share something that's been shared to you, meaning everyone has to go to the same dealer if they want access to the Zune pr0n on their own device.
The API might change between any x.y release. In my opinion, it's a good policy. Extensions can do almost anything in FF, so it makes sense that the extension authors should check each version to make sure their extension works with it.
I'm pretty sure it's possible to write an extension and specify that it works between 0.8 and 99.0. It's not nice to do that without testing, but you can. There are also a couple of ways to trick an extension into installing on a non-supported version of FF.
The bottleneck is the interface between the computer and your brain. Now, as soon as we get computers to think for us this won't be a problem (because then people will only be necessary until the computers perfect robotics), but until then, we're going to need people who can randomly access large data sets and are adept at interpreting and analyzing the data. We call these people experts, and they are vital to the existence of society.
You are actually leading the layman in a completely wrong direction, thus making him think he understands something, but robbing him of any actual knowledge.
Don't you see that the distance of 9.8m has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity or accelleration unless you're using seconds to measure time, and that that measure is totally arbitrary? Don't you see that a force equivalent to that applied by the earth against your feet as you are accellerated into it can be achieved in many ways (centrifuge, perhaps), but falling to an abrupt stop is probably the one least likely to be relied upon to produce any sort of lasting feel for the force because it is so short, and because what really matters is landing technique?
In order for the layman to experience a 2g accelleration after falling off of his 32-foot building, his momentum would have to be absorbed uniformly over a distance of 32 feet. There would have to be a pit at the bottom of the building filled with bubble-wrap, springs, or whatever specially tuned to evenly distribute the accelleration, given his exact weight.
You hit the ground (and conversely, it hits you) at about 2G's
What if I measure time in milliseconds, does my drop off of a 9.8 millimeter building now produce the same 2g's?
The amount of force felt on impact with the ground has more to do with your decelleration: the elasitcity of the collision. It would have to do with the length of your legs, and how long the interval of time taken to absorb the impact.
Well, all you need to do to fix that is to use a small black hole as your centripetal force. As all matter experiences gravitation equally, the body's structure wouldn't experience centrifugal stress.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I avoid myspace like the plague, but for particularly gaudy blogs, I use a handy little extension called Stylish, that gives you much finer-grained control over style: you can disable everything, or just what you want, and it can be controlled per domain, per page, per whatever, so you don't have to switch back and forth.
Concrete proof that spell check is a poor replacement for the brain.
Copyrights
You can steal the boat itself: hull designs are covered by copyright.
I think his point in using those words (and it's a well-made point) is that we make judgemnets all the time: that they are useful and necessary, and that this is a good thing. Using "good" vs. "bad" in place of "good" vs. "irrational" (which is the distinction between the terms 'good judgement' and 'being judgemental') is the true departure from clarity.
His criteria for labelling 'good' and 'bad' are clear, and quite reasonable and practical. Yours are not. Good vs. bad can mean anything to anyone.
Your "nearly universal" maxim is taken out of context. Most people, upon reflection, will agree that it is wrong to judge someone arbitrarily (by refusing to consider all the factors involved). Please notice, that the statement itself is a type of judgement: that taking a certain action is wrong. If it can be shown that someone has done this, one would be right to condemn the action. If a pattern of justifiably condemnable actions is evident in an individual, it is good judgement to notice the pattern and act accordingly.
There's a lot to be said for being civil, but "political correctness" goes way beyond being civil. It's a political ideology that says of certain things "this is good" and therefore "things that contradict it are bad."
There are special groups of people whose values "ought not" to be questioned. If you criticize them, you must hate them.
The worst part about PC, is that it labels anyone who disagrees with its ideologies as irrational, and pre-judges their motives as hate.
Homosexuality is a good example in our current political environment. School kids are being taught that homosexuality is normal and healthy. There was no intelligent cultural discussion on this topic, it was simply asserted, and anyone who disagreed was pre-judged to hate homosexuals, or worse yet, to be afraid of them ('homophobic'). I'm not trying to start a homosexuality flame war. I'm pointing out the lack of an environment that fosters rational criticism in both directions, and I think the blame is shared.
Any ideology that labels all those who disagree with its conclusions as irrational will at best produce irrational proponents of its own philosophy in the majority of its constituents.
My linux box serves (among other things) as the media machine, with its display hooked up to a projector in the living room. I'm not going to sit on the couch with the keyboard in my lap tethered to a box. The cable wouldn't be long enough to reach, and it would always be in the way no matter how long it was.
Does that justify the need for wireless keyboards/mice?
Ever hear of a beaver?
Anyway, just because we haven't reached "ecological balance" yet doesn't mean we won't. Every species upon entering an environment upsets the balance: the pendulum swings for a while, and then it settles. The pendulum is still on its first or second swing.
There's nothing inherantly wrong with humans being in a state of perpetual imbalance. The global ecosystem is constantly in flux. Change happens. Get over it. If we get to the point where earth can't sustain us, something will happen: population reduction/war/new sources of energy/new technology/interplanetary colonization (possibly all of these at once and more).
The one ecologically unique feature of humans is that we have the cognitive ability to know what we're doing and work out the ramifications of our actions (to a certain extent). If we don't have this ability in sufficient quantities, relax, we soon will, provided our first major lesson doesn't wipe out our record-keeping technologies or our species.
The irony is that if earth had no people, there would be no one to arbitrarily assign the label "good" to the "natural" (in this case, meaning untouched by humans) state of ecology.
He postulates alien visitors in 10,000 years coming and finding almost no evidence of us. What do you want to bet that the first thing they do is plop down a few mines and factories.
Sweet! A free planet!
If they have space ships, they have a great need for matereals to build them and fuel/parts for thier energy-gathering machines.
The limitation is in place because it's harder to program in DNA than machine code.
God is a l33t hax0r.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic-tac-toe
There is a non-losing strategy for both the first and second player.
It's not viral: you can't share something that's been shared to you, meaning everyone has to go to the same dealer if they want access to the Zune pr0n on their own device.
I think it's when you mug someone with an iPod.
Of course, newfangled podjacking might have some vague sexual reference about insering your jack in someone else's pod.
Kids these days say the darndest things.
The French. They demanded it, and Apple threatened to pull iTMS out of France. Apple won, because they weren't bluffing.
Slashdotter
One of the many selectable styles is called "OMG !!! ..."
If you find one that isn't, then it's unique in being the first one that isn't.
The API might change between any x.y release. In my opinion, it's a good policy. Extensions can do almost anything in FF, so it makes sense that the extension authors should check each version to make sure their extension works with it.
I'm pretty sure it's possible to write an extension and specify that it works between 0.8 and 99.0. It's not nice to do that without testing, but you can. There are also a couple of ways to trick an extension into installing on a non-supported version of FF.
You must not be new here.
The bottleneck is the interface between the computer and your brain. Now, as soon as we get computers to think for us this won't be a problem (because then people will only be necessary until the computers perfect robotics), but until then, we're going to need people who can randomly access large data sets and are adept at interpreting and analyzing the data. We call these people experts, and they are vital to the existence of society.
It's a great program I have on my Linux box:
http://www.gentoo-portage.com/games-misc/wtf
Yeah, in France, even MS is afraid to hire anyone.
Don't you see that the distance of 9.8m has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity or accelleration unless you're using seconds to measure time, and that that measure is totally arbitrary? Don't you see that a force equivalent to that applied by the earth against your feet as you are accellerated into it can be achieved in many ways (centrifuge, perhaps), but falling to an abrupt stop is probably the one least likely to be relied upon to produce any sort of lasting feel for the force because it is so short, and because what really matters is landing technique?
In order for the layman to experience a 2g accelleration after falling off of his 32-foot building, his momentum would have to be absorbed uniformly over a distance of 32 feet. There would have to be a pit at the bottom of the building filled with bubble-wrap, springs, or whatever specially tuned to evenly distribute the accelleration, given his exact weight.
What if I measure time in milliseconds, does my drop off of a 9.8 millimeter building now produce the same 2g's?
The amount of force felt on impact with the ground has more to do with your decelleration: the elasitcity of the collision. It would have to do with the length of your legs, and how long the interval of time taken to absorb the impact.
X, Y, Z, Roll, Pitch, Yaw