Re:Ending Spam?
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, in a way, and I don't mean philosophically. If nobody can see the spam, then it really will dry up--spammers won't even bother.
There's no such thing as a perfect filtering system, but for every message blocked, that's extra effort for the spammer to get through, making it less and less worthwhile to spam at all.
Or maybe they'll just send more and more, hoping at least one gets through.
Yeah, actually, I've tried the latest version of Firefox and the interface still sucks. All the Cocoa elements are still faked, and badly at that. Buttons don't pulse, fonts are subtly different, translucency is wrong, contextual menus don't blink, and there's a million other little look-and-feel details that serve to make Firefox feel like nothing more than a reanimated corpse of a real Cocoa app. Text boxes are a pain in the ass to work with (no spell checking, perverse linewrapping). The preferences dialog is a fucking sheet, of all things, and it's badly organized. Passwords aren't stored in Keychain and proxy settings aren't inherited from System Preferences. Want me to go on?
As for themes, that's a poor substitute for designing the fucking thing right to begin with. I don't want to have to apply a skin in Firefox in order to make it less ugly, especially considering that no skin I've ever seen can cover up its battered pizzaface of flaws.
Ooh, sorry, I just get worked up about this for some reason.
No, you're not missing anything. Firefox gobbles up insane amounts of memory and the process hangs much more often than Safari (as measured by Apple's developer tools), not to mention the ghastly interface and dork-centric design. If you like all these things, Firefox is for you; otherwise, you'll probably be happier with Safari.
"in particular if they aren't aware of all the great plugins"
There's plugins for Safari, too, you know. Yeah, you won't get the one that changes the browser's name every time you start it up, but Safari's name doesn't suck enough to need that capability.
Look at it this way. Among everything out there, living or dead, on other planets and across the universe, this is who we are as a species. If we end up killing ourselves off, then I guess we were one of the ones that didn't "deserve" to survive. That said, I don't believe we're headed down that path, as you seem to think. Maybe it's the altruistic individuals like yourself who sustain the rest of us--I don't know. Sucks for you, but it bodes well for humanity.
What the hell? How about replying to correct him instead? Or if you absolutely must flex your mod muscles, how about using "overrated"? And finally, didn't you just nullify your mod by posting to this article?
"They could win if they do the right thing, and not just as a PR stunt."
Well for fuck's sake, what would "the right thing" be? Clothing and shelter for homeless children? No, because they're obviously just ensuring a future market for themselves. Feeding starving Africans? Nothing but a PR move. Toppling Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe and installing a democratic government? Clearly on a power trip.
The other poster had it right. Microsoft can't win in your eyes. So why should they even try to do anything positive if people like you are just going to attack them with paranoid cynicism and hate?
So tell me, why is a population of 6.5 billion unsustainable? We have the resources to feed and shelter every living human being. Famine and disease aren't the result of inadequate production, it's poor distribution that's to blame. And as both production and distribution continue to improve, the world will be able to support more and more people. Always has, always will. I'm not sure why you think we're all overdue to die any day now, but I promise the future's not quite as bleak as all that.
Can you also explain why you think economic and political stability is impossible at current population levels? Seems to me that the world used to be a lot messier back before we had a population in the billions, what with famine and disease in every corner of the earth, and that things have actually been getting more stable, not less, over the past few centuries, hell, millennia of population growth. But maybe you meant something different.
It's even possible that doing so would leave so many people with such a bad taste in their mouths that the bad PR alone would be a compelling reason for the insurance company to avoid such testing.
Then again, maybe people would applaud them for taking measures to reduce premiums for the "rest of us." Brave new world this.
OK, let's focus on "developed" economies for a second. Population growth here isn't slowing because of disease, it's slowing because, as you point out, families are choosing to have fewer children (for a variety of reasons). Many diseases that used to kill early and often--polio, tuberculosis, flu, malaria--aren't a concern anymore, and diseases like AIDS aren't so prevalent that they'll lead to an appreciably lessened population growth rate.
So what about the developing world? Here, AIDS and other diseases (malaria, TB) are indeed slowing population growth; however, contrary to common misconception, this is not because of overpopulation. It's because of limited access to education and medicine, plain and simple. HIV infection rates in cities areactually lower than infection rates in rural areas, thanks to better health awareness, availability of things like condoms, and a culture more accepting of diseased individuals (I'm thinking particularly of HIV here, but the same goes for other yucky diseases). Whatever the impact of disease, things would be no better (in relative terms) with a smaller population.
Arable land can be recovered, and the technology's constantly improving to squeeze more and more food out of every hectare of land (sustainably, natch). And it's not as if we don't have malaria vaccines or the proper ways to stop the spread of AIDS. Slowing our population growth rate--whether by fiat or by natural disaster--won't do anything to eliminate famine, disease, and resource depletion. Sorry to sound like such a company man, but really, only economic and political stability can do that.
I think you'll find that "famine, malnutrition, drought, disease, conflict" has historically been much more widespread than it is presently, even in sub-Saharan Africa--and this despite our ever-increasing population. How, then, is this an indication that technology hasn't boosted the sustainable population size?
Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!!
on
10 Technologies MIA
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, because anything this funny must be a troll, right, party-pooper?
"The longer you live there, the more you pay down, and the more you can get when you sell it"...unless the bubble bursts, in which case you'll come out a whole hell of a lot of money short, and you'd have been better off renting for those 10 years. It's certainly possible to save money by renting instead of owning, in general, and particularly now with the housing market what it is.
Yeah, that's a good point--I wouldn't be surprised to find that the "poststructuralism" article on Wikipedia's better-rounded and more comprehensive than any other encyclopedia. Is it factually accurate in the details? For that, I'd probably consult a source I know was written by an expert (or someone I think is an expert) as opposed to some random idiot with a modem and enough spare time to keep reverting Heidegger's nationality to Austrian.
That said, a "real" encyclopedia would hire multiple authors for articles like this, and ask them to offer a well-rounded view of the topic at hand. They have a reputation to protect, y'know. That's how we're supposed to know we're hearing from all sides, but it really is imperfect.
I meant articles like in encyclopedias other than Wikipedia. I have a lot more faith in, say, Britannica claiming Prof. Doodoospitz wrote an article than if Wikipedia's edit history were to claim the same thing.
Most encyclopedia articles I've seen contain bylines, so you can look up the author (hey look, this entry on "Poststructuralism" was written by a Columbia professor!--I can probably assume it's accurate). The thing that makes some reference sources more reputable than others is that they've already done the hard work of establishing the credibility of their sources. For example, I trust the editors of Britannica to do that for me. If I felt like doing it myself, then I'd use Wikipedia.
That said, I do use Wikipedia all the time, and I contribute, too.
I'd like to think I know how to cope with variable credibility, but I'd really just rather not have to waste time digging through edit histories and discussion pages to figure out whose revision comes closest to the "truth" I'm after. Give me a source I already know and trust to be reliable, and I'll even be willing to pay you for the time I save.
Dude, calm down. I just graduated from college and I'm not working for anyone at the moment, but I suppose you'll just have to take my word for it. I see your point about PCs being more appropriate than cell phones for certain uses, but demand for those uses isn't nearly as urgent in (most) developing nations as demand for the things cell phones provide. Read the articles I linked to.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in a way, and I don't mean philosophically. If nobody can see the spam, then it really will dry up--spammers won't even bother.
There's no such thing as a perfect filtering system, but for every message blocked, that's extra effort for the spammer to get through, making it less and less worthwhile to spam at all.
Or maybe they'll just send more and more, hoping at least one gets through.
Yeah, actually, I've tried the latest version of Firefox and the interface still sucks. All the Cocoa elements are still faked, and badly at that. Buttons don't pulse, fonts are subtly different, translucency is wrong, contextual menus don't blink, and there's a million other little look-and-feel details that serve to make Firefox feel like nothing more than a reanimated corpse of a real Cocoa app. Text boxes are a pain in the ass to work with (no spell checking, perverse linewrapping). The preferences dialog is a fucking sheet, of all things, and it's badly organized. Passwords aren't stored in Keychain and proxy settings aren't inherited from System Preferences. Want me to go on?
As for themes, that's a poor substitute for designing the fucking thing right to begin with. I don't want to have to apply a skin in Firefox in order to make it less ugly, especially considering that no skin I've ever seen can cover up its battered pizzaface of flaws.
Ooh, sorry, I just get worked up about this for some reason.
No, you're not missing anything. Firefox gobbles up insane amounts of memory and the process hangs much more often than Safari (as measured by Apple's developer tools), not to mention the ghastly interface and dork-centric design. If you like all these things, Firefox is for you; otherwise, you'll probably be happier with Safari.
"in particular if they aren't aware of all the great plugins"
There's plugins for Safari, too, you know. Yeah, you won't get the one that changes the browser's name every time you start it up, but Safari's name doesn't suck enough to need that capability.
Because Firefox on Mac, as the name suggests, is a flaming pile of shit.
Look at it this way. Among everything out there, living or dead, on other planets and across the universe, this is who we are as a species. If we end up killing ourselves off, then I guess we were one of the ones that didn't "deserve" to survive. That said, I don't believe we're headed down that path, as you seem to think. Maybe it's the altruistic individuals like yourself who sustain the rest of us--I don't know. Sucks for you, but it bodes well for humanity.
What the hell? How about replying to correct him instead? Or if you absolutely must flex your mod muscles, how about using "overrated"? And finally, didn't you just nullify your mod by posting to this article?
Every other player that supports (protected) WMA?
Apple doesn't want to have to amputate 90% of its revenue stream, and that's selfish?
"They could win if they do the right thing, and not just as a PR stunt."
Well for fuck's sake, what would "the right thing" be? Clothing and shelter for homeless children? No, because they're obviously just ensuring a future market for themselves. Feeding starving Africans? Nothing but a PR move. Toppling Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe and installing a democratic government? Clearly on a power trip.
The other poster had it right. Microsoft can't win in your eyes. So why should they even try to do anything positive if people like you are just going to attack them with paranoid cynicism and hate?
So tell me, why is a population of 6.5 billion unsustainable? We have the resources to feed and shelter every living human being. Famine and disease aren't the result of inadequate production, it's poor distribution that's to blame. And as both production and distribution continue to improve, the world will be able to support more and more people. Always has, always will. I'm not sure why you think we're all overdue to die any day now, but I promise the future's not quite as bleak as all that.
Can you also explain why you think economic and political stability is impossible at current population levels? Seems to me that the world used to be a lot messier back before we had a population in the billions, what with famine and disease in every corner of the earth, and that things have actually been getting more stable, not less, over the past few centuries, hell, millennia of population growth. But maybe you meant something different.
I don't think I know anyone who's "pro-abortion." Assuming you're not in favor of a fetal holocaust, the position is "pro-choice."
It's even possible that doing so would leave so many people with such a bad taste in their mouths that the bad PR alone would be a compelling reason for the insurance company to avoid such testing.
Then again, maybe people would applaud them for taking measures to reduce premiums for the "rest of us." Brave new world this.
OK, let's focus on "developed" economies for a second. Population growth here isn't slowing because of disease, it's slowing because, as you point out, families are choosing to have fewer children (for a variety of reasons). Many diseases that used to kill early and often--polio, tuberculosis, flu, malaria--aren't a concern anymore, and diseases like AIDS aren't so prevalent that they'll lead to an appreciably lessened population growth rate.
So what about the developing world? Here, AIDS and other diseases (malaria, TB) are indeed slowing population growth; however, contrary to common misconception, this is not because of overpopulation. It's because of limited access to education and medicine, plain and simple. HIV infection rates in cities are actually lower than infection rates in rural areas, thanks to better health awareness, availability of things like condoms, and a culture more accepting of diseased individuals (I'm thinking particularly of HIV here, but the same goes for other yucky diseases). Whatever the impact of disease, things would be no better (in relative terms) with a smaller population.
Arable land can be recovered, and the technology's constantly improving to squeeze more and more food out of every hectare of land (sustainably, natch). And it's not as if we don't have malaria vaccines or the proper ways to stop the spread of AIDS. Slowing our population growth rate--whether by fiat or by natural disaster--won't do anything to eliminate famine, disease, and resource depletion. Sorry to sound like such a company man, but really, only economic and political stability can do that.
Yes, it is. What are you talking about?
I think you'll find that "famine, malnutrition, drought, disease, conflict" has historically been much more widespread than it is presently, even in sub-Saharan Africa--and this despite our ever-increasing population. How, then, is this an indication that technology hasn't boosted the sustainable population size?
Yeah, because anything this funny must be a troll, right, party-pooper?
"The longer you live there, the more you pay down, and the more you can get when you sell it" ...unless the bubble bursts, in which case you'll come out a whole hell of a lot of money short, and you'd have been better off renting for those 10 years. It's certainly possible to save money by renting instead of owning, in general, and particularly now with the housing market what it is.
Kozmo's back--or at least, the same guys who ran Kozmo are back. Shame about the boring name--I guess they're not hiring brand consultants this time.
Yeah, that's a good point--I wouldn't be surprised to find that the "poststructuralism" article on Wikipedia's better-rounded and more comprehensive than any other encyclopedia. Is it factually accurate in the details? For that, I'd probably consult a source I know was written by an expert (or someone I think is an expert) as opposed to some random idiot with a modem and enough spare time to keep reverting Heidegger's nationality to Austrian.
That said, a "real" encyclopedia would hire multiple authors for articles like this, and ask them to offer a well-rounded view of the topic at hand. They have a reputation to protect, y'know. That's how we're supposed to know we're hearing from all sides, but it really is imperfect.
I meant articles like in encyclopedias other than Wikipedia. I have a lot more faith in, say, Britannica claiming Prof. Doodoospitz wrote an article than if Wikipedia's edit history were to claim the same thing.
Most encyclopedia articles I've seen contain bylines, so you can look up the author (hey look, this entry on "Poststructuralism" was written by a Columbia professor!--I can probably assume it's accurate). The thing that makes some reference sources more reputable than others is that they've already done the hard work of establishing the credibility of their sources. For example, I trust the editors of Britannica to do that for me. If I felt like doing it myself, then I'd use Wikipedia.
That said, I do use Wikipedia all the time, and I contribute, too.
I'd like to think I know how to cope with variable credibility, but I'd really just rather not have to waste time digging through edit histories and discussion pages to figure out whose revision comes closest to the "truth" I'm after. Give me a source I already know and trust to be reliable, and I'll even be willing to pay you for the time I save.
Dude, calm down. I just graduated from college and I'm not working for anyone at the moment, but I suppose you'll just have to take my word for it. I see your point about PCs being more appropriate than cell phones for certain uses, but demand for those uses isn't nearly as urgent in (most) developing nations as demand for the things cell phones provide. Read the articles I linked to.
Google.