Perhaps the Israeli solution should be scaled up. How many screeners per passenger are needed in Israel? How many would it take to activate the same sort of system here? How many screeners per passenger is the US system already using? Last but not least, when considering the whole: how effective (partly based on the above comparisons) is the Israeli system compared to the US' ?
Hear Hear for the no-OS option. I don't think ~any~ computer should ship with a pre-installed OS (unless - IMHO - the maker of both the OS and the hardware are one and the same). All my dell servers are running Debian (an OS 'not supported' by dell, btw), but I have to get it online instead of using all the (windows-oriented) CD's shipped with them.
If all hardware was to ship with no OS, or have a selection of 'OS options' available at the time of the sale, this would put Mac (even more) in a league of its own, as its OS won't work in 'mainstream' hardware (without 'geek tweaking'), and won't install on a mac (without tweaking or an emulator). Yet since Apple is one of the only hardware ~and~ software makers out there, and its OS is made for its own computers, I wouldn't think it really fair to ~make~ them modify their OS (or their hardware) so that it will work on all computers. Yet were they to do this, there would be a radical change in the computer market.
You've got something there. Obeisance != intelligence. Cats ensure that they have all they want (food, litterbox) and anything more (affection, tricks) is totally up to them - they ~can~ be trained, but it's always ~their~ choice. Will is a form of intelligence in my book; or in other words, the ability to ask oneself 'do I really need to learn to do this?'.
Almost. Most of the 'people' who tried the IE9 beta are most likely webmasters/web app developers/tech guys. The declining shares of existing (aka: being used by actual everyday web-users) is indeed important, but comparing the two is apples to oranges.
If we're going to go outside the ASCIII glyph range, then we're going to need i) an extended keyboard (or (an)other key(s) in addition to the 'cmd', 'alt' and 'ctrl' keys?) or ii) a constantly-present glyph window. The second would be a PITA for sure. I do like the article's idea of using color, though.
Most have little use for any math above "total calculation" (determining how many of the objects being traded/in front of you are 'yours') in their everyday lives. You are right, but I would put it in a different way — any math more complicated is ~projection~, meaning that we use it to determine future trends and 'missing objects', or in other words, objects that don't exist (yet). The only 'common occasions' I can think of that call for ~some~ obligatory advanced math are investments and yearly tax declarations — a royal PITA, according to general consensus. But we have brokers and accountants for that, don't we?
Microsoft since years has been patenting 'ideas' (not always their own) that they have never (thought to) put into production, just because they can. Apple has been guilty of the same crime in the past, but they have a much better patent/real product ratio. Why else do you think that Mac fanboys are always looking to the patent registry for clues about the next product Apple will make? One would be completely lost if he tried this with MS's patent applications.
Recognition for ~what~ ? It's nice to have a good product to justify your three motivators - or is product quality but a 'detail' these days?
Google has done some 'un-cool' things in the past (especially when dabbling in fields outside of its own), but its reputation is still based on its base product's function and continued good quality.
Well, he could have said 'most americans we hear about'. It is a known fact that it's the biased and ignorant idiots (of any nation) who are the most vociferous of us all; intelligent people often have more important shit to do and have little time for making their (oh-so-important) opinions heard.
HTML 5 is still in development, and the hardware market (android, iPad, iPhone) has changed enormously in the past few years - I wouldn't at all be surprised if a few new 'multi-media' HTML5 features appear before it gets to its final version.
Yet HTML5 covers only the ~web~ part of the problem we have been facing since the dawn of the computer - cross-platform support. Even if I can transfer a file from one computer to another seamlessly - that is to say, like between finder windows - that doesn't mean I can read it. HTML5 will do all it can for the ~exchange~ of information, but will still be prey to different companies pushing their proprietary file formats and plugins (and how the market reacts to them).
In this respect (plugin-pushing), silverlight has failed; from the onset it had the already-enormous Flash market to contend with (better, overcome? - what were they thinking), and today it looks like (avoiding blanket speculation) HTML5 is going to do away with technological reduncancies such as Flash (javascript today can do what Flash does) altogether. So if Silverlight's goal was to overcome an existing giant (through imitation?), and the giant's existence itself is in question, of course they're going to change their 'strategy'.
I wasn't very precise, was I? By 'file transfer' I mean having the same drag and drop functionality we enjoy in modern finders and applications (rather than the browser file-by-file manual selection we have to deal with today).
I do understand that not everyone wants to read pdf's in their browser, but let's at least cover the 'most common' basics - and perhaps have their availability controllable through the browser preferences. Yes, 'less common' file formats should remain plugin-dependable. I also think that a browser should be capable of using our hardware to its fullest extent (should we so choose to allow it to do so).
Flash is a good example of superseded plugin 'technology' - what is it? It's basically a proprietary set of almost-javascript object-(meaning 'thing')-manipulating code language that dates from an era where javascript wasn't capable of such feats. That time is long gone, and I think the people developing HTML5 understand this.
I also understand that there are quite a few security problems to solve before any of the above can happen. But shouldn't we already be preparing for the eventuality that our web-connected computers will one day be capable of this?
Yes, wait a couple years - not only will html 5 replace flash, but I'm hoping that we'll be able to do away with the notion of 'browser plugin' altogether. Why not have one application/protocol that can handle everything today's browser and all its plugins do, a browser that can access/transfer local files? Yep, there's quite a few security/platform issues to sort out there, but the work would be much more clear-cut if that were the ultimate goal.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the Israeli solution should be scaled up. How many screeners per passenger are needed in Israel? How many would it take to activate the same sort of system here? How many screeners per passenger is the US system already using? Last but not least, when considering the whole: how effective (partly based on the above comparisons) is the Israeli system compared to the US' ?
Send anti-gay religious wingnuts to protest at their funerals.
Hear Hear for the no-OS option. I don't think ~any~ computer should ship with a pre-installed OS (unless - IMHO - the maker of both the OS and the hardware are one and the same). All my dell servers are running Debian (an OS 'not supported' by dell, btw), but I have to get it online instead of using all the (windows-oriented) CD's shipped with them.
If all hardware was to ship with no OS, or have a selection of 'OS options' available at the time of the sale, this would put Mac (even more) in a league of its own, as its OS won't work in 'mainstream' hardware (without 'geek tweaking'), and won't install on a mac (without tweaking or an emulator). Yet since Apple is one of the only hardware ~and~ software makers out there, and its OS is made for its own computers, I wouldn't think it really fair to ~make~ them modify their OS (or their hardware) so that it will work on all computers. Yet were they to do this, there would be a radical change in the computer market.
You've got something there. Obeisance != intelligence. Cats ensure that they have all they want (food, litterbox) and anything more (affection, tricks) is totally up to them - they ~can~ be trained, but it's always ~their~ choice. Will is a form of intelligence in my book; or in other words, the ability to ask oneself 'do I really need to learn to do this?'.
...ever heard the expression "like herding cats"?
I do like cats though for their 'gof*ckyourselfness'. When they're affectionate, you know it counts.
What I don't understand is: why aren't we capable of fabricating synthetic hydrocarbons today?
Almost. Most of the 'people' who tried the IE9 beta are most likely webmasters/web app developers/tech guys. The declining shares of existing (aka: being used by actual everyday web-users) is indeed important, but comparing the two is apples to oranges.
Hear hear! If you want to diminish the amount of code circulating across the web by half, eliminate (the need for) those (#&$^&#) IE6 hacks.
(Prods spear into side of rotting, deformed IE6 cadaver, just to be sure. After a moment of thought, heads to the shed for the gas can.)
Here's hoping it doesn't return as a zombie.
If we're going to go outside the ASCIII glyph range, then we're going to need i) an extended keyboard (or (an)other key(s) in addition to the 'cmd', 'alt' and 'ctrl' keys?) or ii) a constantly-present glyph window. The second would be a PITA for sure. I do like the article's idea of using color, though.
Most have little use for any math above "total calculation" (determining how many of the objects being traded/in front of you are 'yours') in their everyday lives. You are right, but I would put it in a different way — any math more complicated is ~projection~, meaning that we use it to determine future trends and 'missing objects', or in other words, objects that don't exist (yet). The only 'common occasions' I can think of that call for ~some~ obligatory advanced math are investments and yearly tax declarations — a royal PITA, according to general consensus. But we have brokers and accountants for that, don't we?
Microsoft since years has been patenting 'ideas' (not always their own) that they have never (thought to) put into production, just because they can. Apple has been guilty of the same crime in the past, but they have a much better patent/real product ratio. Why else do you think that Mac fanboys are always looking to the patent registry for clues about the next product Apple will make? One would be completely lost if he tried this with MS's patent applications.
...or ground into meat.
Recognition for ~what~ ? It's nice to have a good product to justify your three motivators - or is product quality but a 'detail' these days?
Google has done some 'un-cool' things in the past (especially when dabbling in fields outside of its own), but its reputation is still based on its base product's function and continued good quality.
Well, he could have said 'most americans we hear about'. It is a known fact that it's the biased and ignorant idiots (of any nation) who are the most vociferous of us all; intelligent people often have more important shit to do and have little time for making their (oh-so-important) opinions heard.
Someone metamoderate the moderator '-5 no sense of humour'.
In French, 'rage' means 'rabies'. Did that help?
Is he angry about Android?
HTML 5 is still in development, and the hardware market (android, iPad, iPhone) has changed enormously in the past few years - I wouldn't at all be surprised if a few new 'multi-media' HTML5 features appear before it gets to its final version.
Yet HTML5 covers only the ~web~ part of the problem we have been facing since the dawn of the computer - cross-platform support. Even if I can transfer a file from one computer to another seamlessly - that is to say, like between finder windows - that doesn't mean I can read it. HTML5 will do all it can for the ~exchange~ of information, but will still be prey to different companies pushing their proprietary file formats and plugins (and how the market reacts to them).
In this respect (plugin-pushing), silverlight has failed; from the onset it had the already-enormous Flash market to contend with (better, overcome? - what were they thinking), and today it looks like (avoiding blanket speculation) HTML5 is going to do away with technological reduncancies such as Flash (javascript today can do what Flash does) altogether. So if Silverlight's goal was to overcome an existing giant (through imitation?), and the giant's existence itself is in question, of course they're going to change their 'strategy'.
Platinum is running at about $50000 a Kilogram. Someone needs to get a sense of humour.
Ok, you make the 'kilogram' bar of platinum, and I'll be by to pick it up in an hour. Better still, make a few.
I wasn't very precise, was I? By 'file transfer' I mean having the same drag and drop functionality we enjoy in modern finders and applications (rather than the browser file-by-file manual selection we have to deal with today).
I do understand that not everyone wants to read pdf's in their browser, but let's at least cover the 'most common' basics - and perhaps have their availability controllable through the browser preferences. Yes, 'less common' file formats should remain plugin-dependable. I also think that a browser should be capable of using our hardware to its fullest extent (should we so choose to allow it to do so).
Flash is a good example of superseded plugin 'technology' - what is it? It's basically a proprietary set of almost-javascript object-(meaning 'thing')-manipulating code language that dates from an era where javascript wasn't capable of such feats. That time is long gone, and I think the people developing HTML5 understand this.
I also understand that there are quite a few security problems to solve before any of the above can happen. But shouldn't we already be preparing for the eventuality that our web-connected computers will one day be capable of this?
Yes, wait a couple years - not only will html 5 replace flash, but I'm hoping that we'll be able to do away with the notion of 'browser plugin' altogether. Why not have one application/protocol that can handle everything today's browser and all its plugins do, a browser that can access/transfer local files? Yep, there's quite a few security/platform issues to sort out there, but the work would be much more clear-cut if that were the ultimate goal.
You couldn't kick Darth Vader in the balls anyhow, because according to the last prequel, they got burned off.
Right you are. I was... um, drunk ; P