I don't know about this particular case, but it's common knowledge that the body can absorb alcohol through the anus much faster than by normal means. Alcoholic enemas aren't that uncommon. I know they are done, and I wouldn't be surprised if several people have caused serious harm to their health, or even died, from it. It only takes a few seconds to go from completely sober to falling-on-the-ground drunk with an alcoholic enema.
I think part of the problem is that we don't have a good term for this kind of release. It's not just a beta, because this release will be receiving security updates and other fixes, which a beta wouldn't receive. So instead of trying to come up with a new term, which would then have to be explained over and over again, they just decided to call it 4.0.
Although personally, I don't see why they didn't just follow the progression of Greek letters and call it something like "KDE4 Gamma 1.0" (with small fixes producing e.g. "KDE4 Gamma 1.1", "KDE4 Gamma 1.2", etc).
You are wrong to assume that (real) validation suites do not exist. There are several, and they are very comprehensive. The Acid tests are not validation suites, but that doesn't mean validation suites do not exist.
Kubuntu 8.04 is still planned to be released alongside Ubuntu 8.04, just without long-term service as previously planned. That just means the Gnome stuff in 8.04 will receive security updates longer than the KDE stuff in 8.04.
I remember hearing several times that RFID tags were going to allow me to push a loaded buggy right out the store without having to stop at a checkout counter. That and other ridiculously exaggerated ideas are common, even if they haven't caught on yet.
It's possible they've really come up with something novel, but just going by the information in the article, Apple doesn't seem to have come up with anything new here. They're acting like patent trolls.
these college kids will finally get real jobs and realize that when folks steal their stuff without compensation, they don't get paid. Most people don't have jobs that center around creating digital goods. Even if your claim was true for every single one of them, it would still be a minority.
The Chinese government may have different ideas about what is better, but that doesn't mean they don't want to get better.
We should consider the possibility that the reason China doesn't have a free press is because for whatever reason the Chinese government really thinks a free press would be bad. Maybe they actually just want to control the public, to keep themselves in power, but anybody who believes that should arrive at that belief after consideration of evidence, and they should be willing to change their mind after discovering new evidence.
The poster I replied to said, "This web site was only meant to pacify the citizenry". That may be true, but from what I've heard about China, it certainly seems quite possible that the Chinese government has good intentions with this website.
All I'm really saying is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
but now nearly every single bulb casts a much nicer hue of light. CFLs that cast a very bluish unnatural light are still pretty common. There are now also many CFLs that cast a very yellowish light like incandescent bulbs that I find to be just as ugly. Fortunately, there are also cheap CFLs that cast a beautiful white light that I find much nicer than cheap incandescent bulbs. (Incandescent bulbs that emit white light instead of yellow light are very expensive. CFLs can get close enough for me without getting expensive.)
It's incorrect to say that all CFLs emit a certain kind of light. The kind of light emitted by CFLs variously enormously, just like it can with incandescent bulbs (although CFLs seem to vary much more than incandescents).
This web site was only meant to pacify the citizenry, by making them feel heard. There's no reason to immediately jump to that conclusion. Many Chinese officials actually do care about the citizens of China and want to work hard to make China a better place. Their ideas of what is best may be very different from yours and mine, but that doesn't mean they get off an making people suffer. Why is it so difficult to believe that the Chinese government is serious about this, that it really wants to improve?
The CSS specifications mandate how bad input should be handled; they define the error handling. The Acid 2 test intends to test that error handling. If browsers handle errors differently from how the specifications mandate, they are not compliant with the specifications, so they may fail the test.
If the result of errors was undefined, you'd have a good point. It would make no sense to test what is undefined in the specifications. But that is not the case. Errors in CSS are supposed to be handled in a specific way, and testing that is entirely reasonable.
The problem of inactive members occurred in subcommittee 34 (SC34) of the joint technical committee between ISO and IEC (JTC1). It never affected all of ISO, and several specifications have been approved as standards by ISO since then. The problem still prevents SC34 from getting anything done.
ISO has many committees, and most of them contain several subcommittees. SC34 of JTC1 is only one subcommittee among many. Many people think the problem of inactive members affects all of ISO, but it actually only affects a small part of ISO, and IEC is just as affected as ISO is.
Microsoft has really hurt SC34 of JTC1, but ISO is far too large and important for comparatively puny Microsoft to screw over the entire thing.
Slow isn't the half of it! I've seen people with Windows installs that pop up hundreds of flashing brightly-colored ads every hour. They spend half their time closing the popups. It's so sad.;_;
In a Turing test, the judge knows he's communicating with a person and an AI, and he's trying to figure out which is which. Currently, even an idiot could easily prove he is more human than the smartest of AI.
If the judge was communicating with just one, there probably would be many cases where real people wouldn't pass. But when you're having a side-by-side comparison between humans and AI, it's currently very easy to tell which is which.
Yet still people argue that it does not really count. It doesn't.
This is analogous to the "computers can never beat people at chess" meme No it isn't. Saying "that can never happen" is completely different from saying "it hasn't happened yet".
the bar has been raised on "true AI" to say that computers can't fool expert suspicious Turing test judges For the Turing test, the bar has always been that high. It didn't get moved up there recently. (BTW, the term you are looking for is "strong AI".)
This too will fall. Probably, assuming nothing crazy happens like a vacuum metastability event. But it's immature to claim we are anywhere close.
Let us not forget that ISO stands for International Standards Organization. But it doesn't. The full official names are "International Organization for Standardization" and "Organisation internationale de normalisation".
"ISO" is not an acronym or initialism for the organization's full name. It comes from the Greek word "isos", which means equal.
I don't think you understand how schools work (at least public ones). For example, my highschool Computer Science II teacher started teaching Powerpoint halfway through the second semester. And everything before that was the exact same stuff from Computer Science I but in Java instead of C++ (which CS1 used).
If somebody took a class to learn Photoshop and they taught Gimp instead, at least they're still leaning about digital image manipulation. That's pretty good for a public highschool.
misunderstanding of OOXML issue
on
PDF Is Now ISO 32000
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Apparently ISO has resolved the international standards approval bottleneck that ensued after a number of countries had applied for participating member status just before the vote on Microsoft's proposed OOXML document standard. That problem came up when all those new "participating" member countries suddenly lost interest in, er... participating anymore after the vote on OOXML. The problem arising from OOXML occurred in subcommittee 34 (SC34) of the joint committee between ISO and IEC (JTC1). It never affected all of ISO. It still prevents SC34 from getting anything done.
The PDF specification is being approved by subcommittee 2 of technical committee 171. It has nothing to do with JTC1 and surely has nothing to do with SC34 of JTC1.
It's one thing for the average person to have no idea how ISO or IEC works, and to think the OOXML issue affects all of ISO, and to have no idea that IEC is just as affected by the OOXML issue as ISO is, but any respectable journalist should do some research and try to understand what they're reporting on.
The Inquirer should be ashamed to be associated with such bad reporting.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about this particular case, but it's common knowledge that the body can absorb alcohol through the anus much faster than by normal means. Alcoholic enemas aren't that uncommon. I know they are done, and I wouldn't be surprised if several people have caused serious harm to their health, or even died, from it. It only takes a few seconds to go from completely sober to falling-on-the-ground drunk with an alcoholic enema.
I really don't see how evolution is ever going to lead to an end of competition. Evolution runs on competition.
I'm voting for Ann Atheist. I know she'd appreciate your vote too.
I think part of the problem is that we don't have a good term for this kind of release. It's not just a beta, because this release will be receiving security updates and other fixes, which a beta wouldn't receive. So instead of trying to come up with a new term, which would then have to be explained over and over again, they just decided to call it 4.0.
Although personally, I don't see why they didn't just follow the progression of Greek letters and call it something like "KDE4 Gamma 1.0" (with small fixes producing e.g. "KDE4 Gamma 1.1", "KDE4 Gamma 1.2", etc).
You are wrong to assume that (real) validation suites do not exist. There are several, and they are very comprehensive. The Acid tests are not validation suites, but that doesn't mean validation suites do not exist.
Kubuntu 8.04 is still planned to be released alongside Ubuntu 8.04, just without long-term service as previously planned. That just means the Gnome stuff in 8.04 will receive security updates longer than the KDE stuff in 8.04.
I remember hearing several times that RFID tags were going to allow me to push a loaded buggy right out the store without having to stop at a checkout counter. That and other ridiculously exaggerated ideas are common, even if they haven't caught on yet.
It's possible they've really come up with something novel, but just going by the information in the article, Apple doesn't seem to have come up with anything new here. They're acting like patent trolls.
The Chinese government may have different ideas about what is better, but that doesn't mean they don't want to get better.
We should consider the possibility that the reason China doesn't have a free press is because for whatever reason the Chinese government really thinks a free press would be bad. Maybe they actually just want to control the public, to keep themselves in power, but anybody who believes that should arrive at that belief after consideration of evidence, and they should be willing to change their mind after discovering new evidence.
The poster I replied to said, "This web site was only meant to pacify the citizenry". That may be true, but from what I've heard about China, it certainly seems quite possible that the Chinese government has good intentions with this website.
All I'm really saying is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
It's incorrect to say that all CFLs emit a certain kind of light. The kind of light emitted by CFLs variously enormously, just like it can with incandescent bulbs (although CFLs seem to vary much more than incandescents).
The CSS specifications mandate how bad input should be handled; they define the error handling. The Acid 2 test intends to test that error handling. If browsers handle errors differently from how the specifications mandate, they are not compliant with the specifications, so they may fail the test.
If the result of errors was undefined, you'd have a good point. It would make no sense to test what is undefined in the specifications. But that is not the case. Errors in CSS are supposed to be handled in a specific way, and testing that is entirely reasonable.
If you're interested, you can always have a look at the specifications for yourself.
CSS level 1
CSS level 2
CSS level 2 revision 1
Mozilla used to block traffic to Bugzilla from Slashdot, but they stopped doing it ages ago.
What is this HDVD thing you speak of? Perhaps "High DVD", like some DVDs that have smoked some weed?
The problem of inactive members occurred in subcommittee 34 (SC34) of the joint technical committee between ISO and IEC (JTC1). It never affected all of ISO, and several specifications have been approved as standards by ISO since then. The problem still prevents SC34 from getting anything done.
ISO has many committees, and most of them contain several subcommittees. SC34 of JTC1 is only one subcommittee among many. Many people think the problem of inactive members affects all of ISO, but it actually only affects a small part of ISO, and IEC is just as affected as ISO is.
Microsoft has really hurt SC34 of JTC1, but ISO is far too large and important for comparatively puny Microsoft to screw over the entire thing.
Slow isn't the half of it! I've seen people with Windows installs that pop up hundreds of flashing brightly-colored ads every hour. They spend half their time closing the popups. It's so sad. ;_;
In a Turing test, the judge knows he's communicating with a person and an AI, and he's trying to figure out which is which. Currently, even an idiot could easily prove he is more human than the smartest of AI.
If the judge was communicating with just one, there probably would be many cases where real people wouldn't pass. But when you're having a side-by-side comparison between humans and AI, it's currently very easy to tell which is which.
"ISO" is not an acronym or initialism for the organization's full name. It comes from the Greek word "isos", which means equal.
The name of the organization is "Ecma International" and has been since 1994. The untrademarked name for JavaScript is "ECMAScript".
Your post consisted of one word, and you still got it wrong.
"ECMA" became "Ecma International" in 1994. That's about 13 years ago! Will people ever recognize this name change?
This is a hundred times worse than the "wxWindows" to "wxWidgets" name change.
I don't think you understand how schools work (at least public ones). For example, my highschool Computer Science II teacher started teaching Powerpoint halfway through the second semester. And everything before that was the exact same stuff from Computer Science I but in Java instead of C++ (which CS1 used).
If somebody took a class to learn Photoshop and they taught Gimp instead, at least they're still leaning about digital image manipulation. That's pretty good for a public highschool.
The PDF specification is being approved by subcommittee 2 of technical committee 171. It has nothing to do with JTC1 and surely has nothing to do with SC34 of JTC1.
It's one thing for the average person to have no idea how ISO or IEC works, and to think the OOXML issue affects all of ISO, and to have no idea that IEC is just as affected by the OOXML issue as ISO is, but any respectable journalist should do some research and try to understand what they're reporting on.
The Inquirer should be ashamed to be associated with such bad reporting.
LOL Options? In GNOME? That's a good one.
I'd rather have a hundred new options thrown into a sea of millions of options hidden a dozen layers deep, than to not have those options at all.
What kind of bizarre version of Windows are you running that comes with even one third of the applications that KDE provides?