What? Safari's arguably better than Firefox in terms of CSS2.1/CSS3 support (text-shadow, display: run-in and inline-block, soft hyphens, and forthcoming compliance with Acid2) and much better in terms of user interface, fit and finish. I don't know about Opera, but Firefox really is a pile of shit compared to Safari.
In a way, though, everyone does have perfect eyesight in our environment, since our "environment" nowadays includes Cohen's Fashion Optical down the street. Less than ideal? Perhaps in regards to eyesight, but as a species, it's a good thing for our survival to let less-than-perfect people live and contribute to society. Wasn't Einstein nearsighted?
Pol Pot ordered the execution of everyone in Cambodia who wore glasses. Look at Cambodia now.
Then maybe the societies that don't work so well, e.g. the ones such as you describe, will be crowded out by the societies with attributes more conducive to their survival. The concept of evolution applies just as well to civilizations as to individuals.
Personally, I'd argue that social programs like welfare do us more good than harm, but that's another discussion.
Oh, c'mon. Leaving aside the dubious contention that humans have "overcome" evolution, who appointed you king* to judge who's "worthy" of reproduction and who's not? Sorry, but that's just disgusting.
If some people are reproducing faster than others, isn't it possible that they simply are more fit, in the environment we've built for ourselves, to survive?
* I resisted the temptation to say "Führer," for fear of attracting the Godwin-loving Slashbots. Oops, looks like I did it anyway.:-P
I disagree. We're still evolving, adapting to our environment; it's just that this environment now includes medical care, not to mention agriculture, running water, shelter from predators, and all the rest. Certainly there are people who are more suited than others for life under these conditions, and that's where evolution is ongoing.
To say that we've outsmarted evolution through technology is pure hubris.
I don't mind HTML email, personally, but when I have a choice, I opt for the plain-text version. I think that's the key--allow people to receive your newsletters, receipts, or whatever in the format they want, and things should be fine.
I'd also default to HTML mailings, simply because the people who bitch loudest about HTML (non-pejorative) are also probably capable of finding the preference for plaintext themselves.
Well, yeah. That's the idea behind patents, right? Grant exclusivity to a market for a limited time, in order to reward the effort it (presumably) took to develop whatever you've come up with. I don't see why innovation should be any less encouraged in software than in "meatspace," provided it's real innovation.
That said, I'd be happy to see software patents granted less frivolously, and I'll agree that the length of their term (20 years!) probably hurts more than helps. Just my 2c.
Not to troll or anything, but I wonder if Stack could have used a software patent to prevent that?
Maybe there's something to this whole idea of patenting software after all. Sure, the way software patents are being used now is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean the entire concept is rotten.
Sure, here you go... This page describes a few of the different plugins available for Safari.
Be warned that some of them, like Saft, are shareware. Personally, I figured I already paid for Tiger, so $10 on top of that wasn't a big deal--especially not to support a guy who writes a great plugin like Saft. But yeah, YMMV.
Seems to work for me, using Safari. I personalized a plate (a handicapped motorcycle plate, no less) and went through to the next page. What's Firefox choking on for you?
These are good points, but Firefox doesn't come with a built-in adblocker either. You can add adblocking to Safari (and other functionality, like typeahead find) with plugins, just like Firefox.
Have you tried PithHelmet for Safari? I don't use it myself, but it's supposed to be nice and fast--maybe you'll find it useful.
Thanks for the stats. What I find interesting is that Firefox barely accounts for half of the "alternative" browsers--for example, only 48.8% of the non-IE users last month. How does the remaining 6% break down, if you don't mind my asking?
You're exactly right--sexual orientation shouldn't be an issue at all. The problem is that some in our society are bent on denying benefits to same-sex couples that "traditional" couples already enjoy, and this has the effect of discouraging talented (and, yes, technically diverse!) people from working where they're needed. That's why it's an issue.
Administrators (users in group admin, by default the account that set up Mac OS X) can sudo as root or anyone else, but they have to type their password, just like on any other UNIX. That's what happens when the authorize administrator dialog box comes up, usually while installing software.
You don't need to use NetInfo Manager to explicitly activate the root account, as parent claimed.
I've been pitching this theory "for a while"? This is just the second time I've mentioned it. First time was, like, yesterday. Also, ASOT/Leo wouldn't be the first writer to adopt wildly divergent political views for the sake of discussion, or God knows what in his case, and he seems to be intelligent enough to pull it off more or less convincingly.
Parent of my post said you can't run a process as root unless you go into the NetInfo Manager and explicitly enable the root account (which involves giving it a password). You and I both know better.
Slashdot Mirror
". . . doesn't mean that the RIAA/MPAA can't still sue the domain owner(s) for technically offering pointers to pointers . . ."
So what you're saying is that sites aiding and abetting criminality can't evade prosecution on a technicality? Heavens, say it isn't so.
What? Safari's arguably better than Firefox in terms of CSS2.1/CSS3 support (text-shadow, display: run-in and inline-block, soft hyphens, and forthcoming compliance with Acid2) and much better in terms of user interface, fit and finish. I don't know about Opera, but Firefox really is a pile of shit compared to Safari.
In a way, though, everyone does have perfect eyesight in our environment, since our "environment" nowadays includes Cohen's Fashion Optical down the street. Less than ideal? Perhaps in regards to eyesight, but as a species, it's a good thing for our survival to let less-than-perfect people live and contribute to society. Wasn't Einstein nearsighted?
Pol Pot ordered the execution of everyone in Cambodia who wore glasses. Look at Cambodia now.
Then maybe the societies that don't work so well, e.g. the ones such as you describe, will be crowded out by the societies with attributes more conducive to their survival. The concept of evolution applies just as well to civilizations as to individuals.
Personally, I'd argue that social programs like welfare do us more good than harm, but that's another discussion.
Oh, c'mon. Leaving aside the dubious contention that humans have "overcome" evolution, who appointed you king* to judge who's "worthy" of reproduction and who's not? Sorry, but that's just disgusting.
:-P
If some people are reproducing faster than others, isn't it possible that they simply are more fit, in the environment we've built for ourselves, to survive?
* I resisted the temptation to say "Führer," for fear of attracting the Godwin-loving Slashbots. Oops, looks like I did it anyway.
I disagree. We're still evolving, adapting to our environment; it's just that this environment now includes medical care, not to mention agriculture, running water, shelter from predators, and all the rest. Certainly there are people who are more suited than others for life under these conditions, and that's where evolution is ongoing.
To say that we've outsmarted evolution through technology is pure hubris.
I remember reading that Brian Greene expanded on string theory to formulate rope theory. This was on Wikipedia, naturally.
Well, even Shakespeare used stage directions. :-)
<aside player="macbeth">Come what come may,
Time and the hour runs through the roughest day.</aside>
</exeunt>
I don't mind HTML email, personally, but when I have a choice, I opt for the plain-text version. I think that's the key--allow people to receive your newsletters, receipts, or whatever in the format they want, and things should be fine.
I'd also default to HTML mailings, simply because the people who bitch loudest about HTML (non-pejorative) are also probably capable of finding the preference for plaintext themselves.
"It prevents anyone from even entering a market."
Well, yeah. That's the idea behind patents, right? Grant exclusivity to a market for a limited time, in order to reward the effort it (presumably) took to develop whatever you've come up with. I don't see why innovation should be any less encouraged in software than in "meatspace," provided it's real innovation.
That said, I'd be happy to see software patents granted less frivolously, and I'll agree that the length of their term (20 years!) probably hurts more than helps. Just my 2c.
Not to troll or anything, but I wonder if Stack could have used a software patent to prevent that?
Maybe there's something to this whole idea of patenting software after all. Sure, the way software patents are being used now is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean the entire concept is rotten.
No Safari? Do these stats lump it in with Mozilla, or something? Or does it really have less than 0.02% marketshare? :p
Sure, here you go... This page describes a few of the different plugins available for Safari.
Be warned that some of them, like Saft, are shareware. Personally, I figured I already paid for Tiger, so $10 on top of that wasn't a big deal--especially not to support a guy who writes a great plugin like Saft. But yeah, YMMV.
Seems to work for me, using Safari. I personalized a plate (a handicapped motorcycle plate, no less) and went through to the next page. What's Firefox choking on for you?
These are good points, but Firefox doesn't come with a built-in adblocker either. You can add adblocking to Safari (and other functionality, like typeahead find) with plugins, just like Firefox.
Have you tried PithHelmet for Safari? I don't use it myself, but it's supposed to be nice and fast--maybe you'll find it useful.
Thanks for the stats. What I find interesting is that Firefox barely accounts for half of the "alternative" browsers--for example, only 48.8% of the non-IE users last month. How does the remaining 6% break down, if you don't mind my asking?
(Myself, I use Safari.)
Actually, I thought "you're all dumbasses" was the most insightful bit.
Parent makes a good point; it's too bad the mods didn't want to hear it.
"Apple is just a lousy company to co-operate with . . . Somehow, Apple appears to be unable to work with a community"
In that case, they'll fit right in with FOSS advocates the likes of RMS, ESR, and their hordes of cultish followers. So what's the problem?
You're exactly right--sexual orientation shouldn't be an issue at all. The problem is that some in our society are bent on denying benefits to same-sex couples that "traditional" couples already enjoy, and this has the effect of discouraging talented (and, yes, technically diverse!) people from working where they're needed. That's why it's an issue.
Oh please. As if gay couples can't adopt and raise children.
I resent your crude application of postmodernism to justify equating faith and science.
Administrators (users in group admin, by default the account that set up Mac OS X) can sudo as root or anyone else, but they have to type their password, just like on any other UNIX. That's what happens when the authorize administrator dialog box comes up, usually while installing software.
You don't need to use NetInfo Manager to explicitly activate the root account, as parent claimed.
I've been pitching this theory "for a while"? This is just the second time I've mentioned it. First time was, like, yesterday. Also, ASOT/Leo wouldn't be the first writer to adopt wildly divergent political views for the sake of discussion, or God knows what in his case, and he seems to be intelligent enough to pull it off more or less convincingly.
Parent of my post said you can't run a process as root unless you go into the NetInfo Manager and explicitly enable the root account (which involves giving it a password). You and I both know better.