A "sheep?" I'm a sheep for some reason because I use a browser that packs more features than Firefox, doesn't require extensions to get them, and still manages to use half as much memory and ship in a smaller installer filesize?
"More features"? Is this about counting? I want a browser that has the set of features that I want to use. I don't really care if there's one that has "more" features than the one I use, or even if a small number of the ones I use are included in that list.
I never said the pen wasn't a nice place to be if you don't want to bother with the troubles inherent to freedom, I merely pointed out the fact that it was fenced in. Firefox's main appeal is that if a small constituent of users wants something, and are willing to put in the effort, they can have it. This leads to innovation, and that's good for everyone. Of course extension writers should copy the functionality that they like from other browsers into Firefox extensions: no one is claiming that Firefox thought of everything first, only that if we want something, we can have it.
My point is that the feature of extensibility is something that Firefox has hands down over the compeititon, and for me that's a selling point.
Yes, it does. Next.
Oh, and I checked (yes, I do have it (and IE7) installed), it seems Opera does have similar functionality to ConQuery (though you can't install Mycroft search plugins). Beyond that, Opera does not (that I can find) have similar functionality to any of the plugins I listed.
Shouldn't you be off cloning Opera's features and adding them to the bloated, memory-leaking Firefox codebase?
Ooh, you got me there. I think I'll go off into a corner and cry for a while. Personally I've never had any issues with memory leaks or sluggishness.
The mantra of Apple, exactly. And it works, as long as you're a sheep.
The only tiny tiny problem is who gets to decide that "the features" are. Does Opera come with the features contained in ConQuery, Flashblock, Gmail Notifier, IE Tab, Nuke Anything, Slashdotter, and Web Developer? If not, then I'm not too interested. I might install Opera for my grandma, though.
"You can have any color you want, as long as it's black." -Ford
Where I (mentally) get stuck is the vectors are themselves dependent on the location of the center of mass, so you end up with a recursive function that's beyond my meager (and rusty) math skills.
Not just you, but everyone else too, once you try to track mutual gravitiation on more than two bodies. It's called the N-body problem
Taking a quick glance at my spam folder, it seems to me that there are a few very logical reasons why people would end up buying from a spammer:
(1) Unavailability (illegal or taboo) They don't know of any other place to buy the product being advertised (perhaps because it is not advertised elsewhere, or it's illegal to advertise or sell), or they would be too embarassed to research it further or walk into a store that sells the item or request it from a person in "real life."
Examples: penis enlargements, viagra knockoffs (and other shady pharmaceuticals), fake rolexes, porn can also fall into this category.
Often the strategy of spammers could be to just always be "there" so that when someone first decides to enter the market for a product, the easiest source that immediately pops into their minds is spam.
(2) Stock tips: all the spammer has to do is plant the ticker symbol and curiosity takes over. If enough people look at a stock, odds are some of them will take a chance on it and buy, even without research (perhaps they feel lucky). There really is no such thing as bad publicity for an obscure company.
unless Vista's changed something this default can be changed quite easily. It would be an improvement if Windows had sensible default setting combinations that applied based on the current resolution, but certainly this isn't a new problem with Vista
I just bought a new Dell Laptop with XP on it and it has a setting in the Display Properties dialogue for DPI. Initially I found it quite annoying, because I didn't know about the setting and I was trying to set the fonts and GUI elements to a smaller size and they wouldn't go that small, but since it was a Dell and comes preinstalled with bloatware, I reformatted the hard drive and reinstalled everything, and the new install defaulted to the normal setting, and prompted me later on when I was installing "Dell QuickSet". I'm not sure if the setting is native to Windows and the interface was just exposed by Dell's configuration software. Maybe it's part of Media Center.
Anyway, it's a concern that is being addressed in new versions of Windows. Though personally, prefer things to be small by default and I can increase the size later on if I want.
Some people can't see, and don't know how to change configuration settings, so I think it's a good thing that they make it simple to change globally.
I interpreted the sig to which I was responding to be an argument against abortion as follows: (1) A human being can be defined as "A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism." (2) A fetus is human (assuming we're concerned with the abortion of human offspring) (3) A fetus is genetically distinct from its mother (4) A fetus, if it is alive, is a functioning organism (5) From 1, 2, 3 & 4: A fetus, as a human being, is in the same class as every other human being, i.e., "person".
The problem with this argument is that it is totally useless, and will not modify our treatment of fetuses unless we also believe that: (0) Humans are distinct from all other forms of life.
Notice that for this argument to work the value of human life must be intrinsic, that is, it must not rest on a set of criteria based on intelligence, capability, complexity or beauty, since a fetus has none of these things above other animals. Also, "potential" is meaninless without reference to God. If humans evolved from other creatures without God's input, then there is no real difference between Albert Einstien's fetus and a microbe, because they have the same potential, it's just that one of them happens to be closer at the moment. Besides, potential for what? For those other things that we "happen" to value.
The only thing that can possibly make human beings of an *intrinsically* (not emergently) different quality is that if simply by being human they posess something that all other forms of life do not, and never can posess without it being added to them externally. Enter God.
Please be reminded: this discussion is not at all about his existence or character. It is about the usefulness of the classification of "human beings" as an intrinsically higher order than the rest of the animals. God is the only entity that could make this so. If he does not exist, or if he did not do this, then there is no difference between aborting a fetus and swatting a fly. If he did do this, then the former is murder because it is doing damage to the image of God.
"a" "single" "unit". You should have just stuck with ASCII, but even that is based on a number system and therefore the concept of "being" and "not being".
Sorry, but I feel the compulsion to pick apart your sig.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
So since clones aren't genetically distinct, they only constitute a single being? What about identical twins? What about conjoined twins?
"Functioning" could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything. Does it exclude a fetus who is dependent on its mother? What if it's still breast feeding? What if it still lives in its parents' basement? What about humans that aren't "functioning" properly, are they no longer beings?
If I spliced a pig gene into someone's DNA, they're not a "human being"?
Honestly, it's pointless to try to "define" personhood in any way that does not directly involve God.
There are pleanty of intelligent and respectable people who use the service.
Pray tell, what do they use it for? Are you saying that otherwise intelligent and respectable people use this "service," or that their use of myspace is actually an example of intelligent and/or respectable behavior?
This is only true when you can't just go further overseas. Eventually it will be true, but the whole fucking world will be heavily industrialized by then.
The only way the whole world is going to get industrialized is through outsourcing.
Please don't use that "word". It's worse than "nukyular." At least nukular has no inherent meaning, whereas "irregardless" implies a double negative meaning: "without lack of regard."
It's as if abunch of idiots got together and decided they would use the word "unpurple" to mean purple. I want my language to make intuitive sense, please stop making it meaninless.
The proper word for this context is "regardless". You could also have gotten away with "...irrespective to how much..."
Slashdot Mirror
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"More features"? Is this about counting? I want a browser that has the set of features that I want to use. I don't really care if there's one that has "more" features than the one I use, or even if a small number of the ones I use are included in that list.
I never said the pen wasn't a nice place to be if you don't want to bother with the troubles inherent to freedom, I merely pointed out the fact that it was fenced in. Firefox's main appeal is that if a small constituent of users wants something, and are willing to put in the effort, they can have it. This leads to innovation, and that's good for everyone. Of course extension writers should copy the functionality that they like from other browsers into Firefox extensions: no one is claiming that Firefox thought of everything first, only that if we want something, we can have it.
My point is that the feature of extensibility is something that Firefox has hands down over the compeititon, and for me that's a selling point.
Oh, and I checked (yes, I do have it (and IE7) installed), it seems Opera does have similar functionality to ConQuery (though you can't install Mycroft search plugins). Beyond that, Opera does not (that I can find) have similar functionality to any of the plugins I listed.
Ooh, you got me there. I think I'll go off into a corner and cry for a while. Personally I've never had any issues with memory leaks or sluggishness.
The mantra of Apple, exactly. And it works, as long as you're a sheep.
The only tiny tiny problem is who gets to decide that "the features" are. Does Opera come with the features contained in ConQuery, Flashblock, Gmail Notifier, IE Tab, Nuke Anything, Slashdotter, and Web Developer? If not, then I'm not too interested. I might install Opera for my grandma, though.
"You can have any color you want, as long as it's black." -Ford
Not just you, but everyone else too, once you try to track mutual gravitiation on more than two bodies. It's called the N-body problem
There are sites out there that attempt to compensate for your lack of anything interesting to say with annoying flashy things and "friends."
Taking a quick glance at my spam folder, it seems to me that there are a few very logical reasons why people would end up buying from a spammer:
(1) Unavailability (illegal or taboo)
They don't know of any other place to buy the product being advertised (perhaps because it is not advertised elsewhere, or it's illegal to advertise or sell), or they would be too embarassed to research it further or walk into a store that sells the item or request it from a person in "real life."
Examples: penis enlargements, viagra knockoffs (and other shady pharmaceuticals), fake rolexes, porn can also fall into this category.
Often the strategy of spammers could be to just always be "there" so that when someone first decides to enter the market for a product, the easiest source that immediately pops into their minds is spam.
(2) Stock tips: all the spammer has to do is plant the ticker symbol and curiosity takes over. If enough people look at a stock, odds are some of them will take a chance on it and buy, even without research (perhaps they feel lucky). There really is no such thing as bad publicity for an obscure company.
Well, there's worm patch sausage and worm, that's not got much worm in it.
I just bought a new Dell Laptop with XP on it and it has a setting in the Display Properties dialogue for DPI. Initially I found it quite annoying, because I didn't know about the setting and I was trying to set the fonts and GUI elements to a smaller size and they wouldn't go that small, but since it was a Dell and comes preinstalled with bloatware, I reformatted the hard drive and reinstalled everything, and the new install defaulted to the normal setting, and prompted me later on when I was installing "Dell QuickSet". I'm not sure if the setting is native to Windows and the interface was just exposed by Dell's configuration software. Maybe it's part of Media Center.
Anyway, it's a concern that is being addressed in new versions of Windows. Though personally, prefer things to be small by default and I can increase the size later on if I want.
Some people can't see, and don't know how to change configuration settings, so I think it's a good thing that they make it simple to change globally.
For the purposes of this discussion, the only attribute God need have is the *ability* to make human life of inherantly more value than other life.
I think we can be at least as sure that we include this attribute when we say "God" as we can that we will be understood when we say "person".
Please see my previous post.
Certainly, though I thought it was obvious.
I interpreted the sig to which I was responding to be an argument against abortion as follows:
(1) A human being can be defined as "A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism."
(2) A fetus is human (assuming we're concerned with the abortion of human offspring)
(3) A fetus is genetically distinct from its mother
(4) A fetus, if it is alive, is a functioning organism
(5) From 1, 2, 3 & 4: A fetus, as a human being, is in the same class as every other human being, i.e., "person".
The problem with this argument is that it is totally useless, and will not modify our treatment of fetuses unless we also believe that:
(0) Humans are distinct from all other forms of life.
Notice that for this argument to work the value of human life must be intrinsic, that is, it must not rest on a set of criteria based on intelligence, capability, complexity or beauty, since a fetus has none of these things above other animals. Also, "potential" is meaninless without reference to God. If humans evolved from other creatures without God's input, then there is no real difference between Albert Einstien's fetus and a microbe, because they have the same potential, it's just that one of them happens to be closer at the moment. Besides, potential for what? For those other things that we "happen" to value.
The only thing that can possibly make human beings of an *intrinsically* (not emergently) different quality is that if simply by being human they posess something that all other forms of life do not, and never can posess without it being added to them externally. Enter God.
Please be reminded: this discussion is not at all about his existence or character. It is about the usefulness of the classification of "human beings" as an intrinsically higher order than the rest of the animals. God is the only entity that could make this so. If he does not exist, or if he did not do this, then there is no difference between aborting a fetus and swatting a fly. If he did do this, then the former is murder because it is doing damage to the image of God.
Does that serve to calrify?
"a" "single" "unit". You should have just stuck with ASCII, but even that is based on a number system and therefore the concept of "being" and "not being".
So since clones aren't genetically distinct, they only constitute a single being? What about identical twins? What about conjoined twins?
"Functioning" could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything. Does it exclude a fetus who is dependent on its mother? What if it's still breast feeding? What if it still lives in its parents' basement? What about humans that aren't "functioning" properly, are they no longer beings?
If I spliced a pig gene into someone's DNA, they're not a "human being"?
Honestly, it's pointless to try to "define" personhood in any way that does not directly involve God.
No, techinically it only requires Windows. You have yet to state any reason at all for installing Linux.
Don't belive everything you read on slashdot.
I assume you don't ever wash your hair unless you trip and your head lands in the dirt.
Please don't use that "word". It's worse than "nukyular." At least nukular has no inherent meaning, whereas "irregardless" implies a double negative meaning: "without lack of regard."
It's as if abunch of idiots got together and decided they would use the word "unpurple" to mean purple. I want my language to make intuitive sense, please stop making it meaninless.
The proper word for this context is "regardless". You could also have gotten away with "...irrespective to how much..."
No way. Possibly 279.99, though.
You can upgrade the white model to 80GB for $50.