Sorry if the tone of my previous response got a little out of hand.
But I think the issue is that we're talking about two different things -- you're talking about how IE makes your life miserable; I'm talking about relevance of that issue.
And yet it still has nothing to do with why IE is being ripped a new one in a discussion about HTML5 standards. Still a red herring.
But then again, as you said, you're not a web developer. That pretty much disables your ability to comment on the subject with any intelligence
You misunderstand. I'm not commenting on whether IE is a pain in the ass or not, I'm commenting on whether it has anything to do with how HTML5 standard development should happen.
The OP I responded to said that HTML5 development should be dropped in favor of "attacking" IE.
But, you know, don't let reading the chain of comments get in the way of your misunderstanding the discussion.
If you don't want to read what I've written, you don't have to. But isn't it a waste of time to get all worked up about my comments when you could be tackling those IE hacks?
You did a great job of linking the trademark issue with the brand image issue.
It's a shame that so many people on slashdot want to put Hormel through the pattywhack machine for their defense of their trademark.
You'd think that after being through the lawsuit grinder, Hormel will have to find another way to smoke their trademark competition... they need to find a cure for the bad rep associated with email spam. The lawsuit method of curing was all wet, they should have taken their lawyers' advice with a grain of salt.
Some claim that the Pacific Islander's spam mania comes from their cannabilistic heritage and Spam's taste resemblance to the other, other white meat.
What I've read is that Spam is currently popular where two things intersect:
1. A history of pork consumption among the resident people (which is true for the Pacific isles) and 2. American military presence from the 1930s(?) through the 1970s(?).
I can't remember the date ranges, but this is true for Hawaii, the Philippines, etc. -- it's tied to the US Military's procurement contracts with Hormel.
I'd also like to note that the popularity of pork has been linked to cannibalism as well... but I'm not sure how well that theory holds up.
I don't know why they haven't jumped on board years ago. You mean we get to sell music without the overhead of a physical plant to produce discs/tapes/whatever, without a transportation infrastructure to deliver the product to retailers, without having to share the profit with stores? What's the catch?
Yes, making quality copies is easier for the consumer than taping off the radio or making a dub from a friend. But 1) that fact doesn't negate any of the positives of the above paragraph.
Sure it does. They don't get to sell music if it's available in infinite quantities for the cost of electricity and W&T on computer hardware. The catch is that the end-users get to redistribute without all the other overhead, such as marketing, advertising, legal, finance. Since their overhead is greater than all the other "sellers", their model is toast.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. I misunderstood your comment.
One could say, however, that there is no connection beween Coke (tm) and industrial coke; does calling industrial coke "coke" dilute the Coke trademark?
This isn't a great parallel, since coke was around before Coke (tm) and doesn't have the negative connotations of spam, but trademarks are held to be specific to a type of product.
What is important from Hormel's perspective, I think, is that they maintain positive brand image -- and it's kind of hard when far more people are exposed to spam than to Spam(tm). I think the solution for them is to rebrand Spam(tm). Expensive and annoying, I know, but the law is not on their side, so that may be their best option.
If the "A" in PETA stands for wat I think it does, there is no way that they'd consider ham-fisting to be an ethical way to treat that part of the anatomy.
Although it might be interesting to watch the video...
You have a job because there is work to be done. Less work == fewer jobs available. The markletplace requires unpaid overtime because there are people, such as yourself, willing to supply that labor. I don't undertand what the issue is, we'd all like our jobs to be cookies and roses -- but we all deal with things we'd rather not have to. I'll still maintain that attacking something/someone is less constructive than alternative efforts.
As for wasting time on IE hacks and rather spending that time doing something more productive -- this is slashdot. If productivity is your concern, there's something obvious there....
You know, there's a reason I (and my coworkers) hate it, apparently you just think we hate it because it's fun.
No, I think you hate it for valid reasons. I also think, however, that the entire issue of non-standards compliance is a red herring when discussing HTML5 design, unless the non-compliance is directly related to a specific HTML5 design choice. Which, of course, in this article/discussion, it's not.
I know how you post. Anonymously when you think you won't be getting alot of upmods (such as further down in a discussion, like this one). That is, if you ever bother to respond to people... you often post malarkey and don't bother responding when people call you out on it.
Oh, and if I'm mistaken, and you're not eldavojohn, I apologize.
Also, a bit offtopic but I Googled "kinder gentler" in an attempt to understand its meaning and for some reason the first result was the White House page for George Herbert Walker Bush. What the hell?
Wow. You must be young, or I must be old.
GHWB (not to be confused with GHB, which can be metabolized from certain toy paints) was made fun of a lot for one of his campaign mottos, which was "It's time for a kindler, gentler America." Dana Carvey made gravy from spoofing GHWB on SNL, and the "kindler, gentler America" bit was an instant classic.
And this brings me around to my point.
This is ridiculous. You are attacking the wrong target here, you should be attacking the browsers that don't behave according to standards like the cowboy Internet Explorer browser that sometimes does whatever it wants.
That's a separate problem. Admittedly, I'm not a web developer, but it's rather obvious to me that there are very useful changes in HTML5, and ignoring the possibility of improving web standards in favor of attacking non-compliant browsers is not smart. Far better to address both problems -- besides, how constructive is "attacking" non-compliant browsers? In my experience, attacking others is usually not constructive.
In short, I feel like you're making a big statement about best policy with a limited understanding of what's going on. I know for certain that I don't have full knowledge here -- but I'd never claim I know the answer.
But, you know, it's always nice to karma-whore by ripping IE. Sure, IE development may make extra work for you -- but then again, you're being paid for that work. Why not be happy that "that cowboy Internet Explorer" helped you find gainful employment?
Another piece of the puzzle is how the other kids in the neighborhood are being raised. Parenting is a team sport. If the kids next door are allowed to slide through school unchallenged, that problem finds its way into your house eventually. School systems try to adapt to substandard parenting by slowing everyone else down so that the average kid can pass. Parents can raise the average with positive motivation. People try to choose a town with "good schools", but in reality they are looking for a town with parents who take the time to get involved and pay attention to their kids.
Some food for thought, I guess. My [vicarious] experience has been that regardless of what goes on in the community, kids need to be taught that what other kids do is not important. Someone here has a sig that says something to the effect of "Losers compare their accomplishments to those of others; winners compare their accomplishments to their goals".
As for choosing a town with "good schools" and choosing a community with "good parents," I think the two criteria are related. The type of person who is likely to seek out a good school system is the type of parent who will be involved in their child's education. Good schools require that parents get involved (among other things).
I think you may have missed the point of the article. It's quite possible to take the time to teach your kids, but have it blow up in your face because the methods of teaching are not optimal.
You seem to have done a great job making sure your daughter is open to traditionally gender-inappropriate areas of interest, and to have challenged her and stimulated her in positive ways. Often, though, parents will say, "C'mon, you're smarter than that" or something similar when their child fails. As failures mount (and they will, learning is a process that requires failure), the child begins to believe that they really aren't that smart, and that a lack of intelligence is why they fail.
What I've taken from the article is that a better way to handle that would be to say, "C'mon, let's figure out how you can be smarter about that problem next time." This implies that intelligence is malleable and trainable.
How have you handled your daughter's failures?
/For the record, I've been doing a lot of reading on the subject lately, as I'm a fairly new father of a girl -- and I'm always looking for insight.
Because no private organisations have $250-400 billion in spare cash lying around to fritter on a quixotic dream for no better reason than neo-imperialist flag waving?
Not for nothing, but a one-way trip would not be nearly so expensive. If the passenger anticipates dying anyway, the planners could easily forego such luxuries as plants in the passenger area, sufficient food (what's a little undernourishment to a condemnee), fuel to escape Mars' gravity, etc.
The only concern, other than survival of the "volunteer", would be minimizing the impact of space madness. I suggest not having a red button labeled "Do not push", and not sending any soap along with the passenger.
Yes, like Europeans, Chinese sailors inadvertently passed/carried diseases, which in the case of Chinese, wiped out 10,000s of Natives. However, the difference is the Chinese didn't come here to STAY, invade, expurgate, demolish, or hijack an existing, thriving human ecosystem (competitive and warring, true), nor to subject the Natives.
That alone speaks VOLUMES about wisdom, humility, and more.
Not really. You should finish reading that book, or perhaps read it a little more in-depth. It speaks VOLUMES about how massive expeditions became politically taboo in China due to economic concerns and power struggles within the royal family.
As for China's attitude towards other "less developed" cultures, I think you've quite a bit of reading to do. China's relations with other states in the 15th century was varied, and assimilation/domination of other cultures was definitely within their repertoire.
Well, I think my wife would be upset if I dated at all...
But my single friends who are dating typically depend on other things to ensure their date is not a big risk. Like only dating people recommended to them by people they trust, or dating people from work for whom they already have a sense of what kind of person they are. Sure, it's not foolproof, but there is SOME kind of vetting process.
Meeting an absolute stranger on the internet and then dating them in person carries a lot of risks that can be mitigated via background check.
My point is, by extension, that any kind of selective breeding leads to eugenics if you follow that logic to its conclusion. If selective breeding is OK for livestock, why would a tool that makes it more efficient be bad?
People selecting mates based on race, based on appearance, based on income, etc., all should be considered as steps on the slippery slope to eugenics if you follow your logic to its conclusion.
Eugenics is widely derided, for lots of reasons. Mostly because it's viewed as state control over human reproduction. However, the means by which eugenics is employed are not the problem -- the problem is how those means are used.
To sum up -- just because cloning could be used for eugenics, doesn't mean it will be -- the trick is to prevent it from being used in such a manner.
Seriously, a lot of hook-ups, meeting new people for dating, etc. happen at bars, not online.
The 90s called, they want their method-of-meeting-people back[1]
Seriously, have you any idea of how few people in a relationship met in bars compared to other means? Or how ubiquitous online dating services have become? This is particularly true for age ranges > 30.
Your point stands about a false sense of security. You'd think that maybe someone smart enough to go online to a dating site would be smart enough to do their own background check; the problem is that there is no assurance that the person they are checking on is actually who they say they are; the dating sites act as a vetting service -- this is what potential daters are paying for.
That said, I think the problem is that people too stupid to do their own background checks actually increase their chance of reproducing through these dating sites. This means that, from an evolutionary standpoint, they are getting some help in propagating their genes. I would like my legislator to propose legislation to ban all people too stupid to perform their own background checks from using dating sites. For the good of the species, please.
Won't someone think of the genome?
[1] Yes, I know, the 90s called, and they want their "The 80s called and want their $FOO back" joke back.
I don't have any particular opinion about human cloning, except for the fact that I don't see any actual point in it. Animal cloning is done to strengthen the breed, technically, so either we're advocating some kind of eugenics
What?
Animal cloning is not done to strengthen a breed -- it does nothing to the genome at all.
Animal cloning is used to preserve a bloodline or even to propagate it, but I don't see how you could claim it's done to strengthen a breed -- do you have any examples of this? A link or two?
Selective breeding is used to strengthen a breed, and this has been done for millenia - both among humans and domesticated animals. Yet there is no outcry over eugenics when someone chooses to only copulate with attractive and/or successful partners.
I ramble a bit, but I'm a little confused as to how you can draw a parallel between cloning and eugenics -- it seems like a bit of a stretch.
It's an area of debate, to be sure. My understanding is that (like the mammoth in Eurasia example I used in my OP in this thread) there was negative population pressure from both means -- climate change enabled overkill, but overkill was the ultimate cause of extinction.
Also note that the paper you refer to speaks specifically of the Clovis people of 11000 years ago; it hints at the earlier presence of man in the Americas, but a lot has been published since 2001 on when man came to the Americas. Do you know of any recent research on the topic that I would find helpful? I'm guessing by your userID that you're at minimum a serious hobbiest... if you could point me towards additional enlightening materials I'd appreciate it.
Nobody does. It's believed that the last ice age killed off many larger versions of creatures that are very similar to what we have today.
The current widelw-accepted theory is that human predation caused those extinctions in the Americas, which was enabled by the last ice age (from the diaspora of peoples via the north pacific land bridge). Large animals that did not co-evolve with humans were easy prey for voracious hunter-gatherers. Large carnivorous animals followed, due to both reduction of their food supply by human hunters, and by direct hunting by humans.
In Eurasia, reduced habitat due to encroaching ice reduced mammoth populations, not just because of less food, but also because it forced the mammoths to migrate to areas where human predation was a bigger problem. Not sure if this is considered the current theory for the cave bear as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry if the tone of my previous response got a little out of hand.
But I think the issue is that we're talking about two different things -- you're talking about how IE makes your life miserable; I'm talking about relevance of that issue.
You misunderstand. I'm not commenting on whether IE is a pain in the ass or not, I'm commenting on whether it has anything to do with how HTML5 standard development should happen.
The OP I responded to said that HTML5 development should be dropped in favor of "attacking" IE.
But, you know, don't let reading the chain of comments get in the way of your misunderstanding the discussion.
If you don't want to read what I've written, you don't have to. But isn't it a waste of time to get all worked up about my comments when you could be tackling those IE hacks?
You did a great job of linking the trademark issue with the brand image issue.
It's a shame that so many people on slashdot want to put Hormel through the pattywhack machine for their defense of their trademark.
You'd think that after being through the lawsuit grinder, Hormel will have to find another way to smoke their trademark competition... they need to find a cure for the bad rep associated with email spam. The lawsuit method of curing was all wet, they should have taken their lawyers' advice with a grain of salt.
/Sorry, I've got meat processing on the mind now.
1. A history of pork consumption among the resident people (which is true for the Pacific isles) and
2. American military presence from the 1930s(?) through the 1970s(?).
I can't remember the date ranges, but this is true for Hawaii, the Philippines, etc. -- it's tied to the US Military's procurement contracts with Hormel.
I'd also like to note that the popularity of pork has been linked to cannibalism as well... but I'm not sure how well that theory holds up.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. I misunderstood your comment.
One could say, however, that there is no connection beween Coke (tm) and industrial coke; does calling industrial coke "coke" dilute the Coke trademark?
This isn't a great parallel, since coke was around before Coke (tm) and doesn't have the negative connotations of spam, but trademarks are held to be specific to a type of product.
What is important from Hormel's perspective, I think, is that they maintain positive brand image -- and it's kind of hard when far more people are exposed to spam than to Spam(tm). I think the solution for them is to rebrand Spam(tm). Expensive and annoying, I know, but the law is not on their side, so that may be their best option.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
If the "A" in PETA stands for wat I think it does, there is no way that they'd consider ham-fisting to be an ethical way to treat that part of the anatomy.
Although it might be interesting to watch the video...
Yup, sorry. Though Glass is well known for using silence in his compositions.
And, of course, he does compose movie scores that are distributed by RIAA labels.
Damn it, I was wrong on just about everything in my post. Sigh.
Time to get more coffee.
Meh. Philip Glass never sold his soul to the RIAA...
Do you have his express written permission for that silence?
As for wasting time on IE hacks and rather spending that time doing something more productive -- this is slashdot. If productivity is your concern, there's something obvious there....
No, I think you hate it for valid reasons. I also think, however, that the entire issue of non-standards compliance is a red herring when discussing HTML5 design, unless the non-compliance is directly related to a specific HTML5 design choice. Which, of course, in this article/discussion, it's not.
I know how you post. Anonymously when you think you won't be getting alot of upmods (such as further down in a discussion, like this one). That is, if you ever bother to respond to people... you often post malarkey and don't bother responding when people call you out on it.
Oh, and if I'm mistaken, and you're not eldavojohn, I apologize.
GHWB (not to be confused with GHB, which can be metabolized from certain toy paints) was made fun of a lot for one of his campaign mottos, which was "It's time for a kindler, gentler America." Dana Carvey made gravy from spoofing GHWB on SNL, and the "kindler, gentler America" bit was an instant classic.
And this brings me around to my point.That's a separate problem. Admittedly, I'm not a web developer, but it's rather obvious to me that there are very useful changes in HTML5, and ignoring the possibility of improving web standards in favor of attacking non-compliant browsers is not smart. Far better to address both problems -- besides, how constructive is "attacking" non-compliant browsers? In my experience, attacking others is usually not constructive.
In short, I feel like you're making a big statement about best policy with a limited understanding of what's going on. I know for certain that I don't have full knowledge here -- but I'd never claim I know the answer.
But, you know, it's always nice to karma-whore by ripping IE. Sure, IE development may make extra work for you -- but then again, you're being paid for that work. Why not be happy that "that cowboy Internet Explorer" helped you find gainful employment?
Seems like it reminds you of a 2-panel manga.
:)
Or did you use the fabled [invisible][/invisible] tags for the other two panels?
It is my experience that the spin will never stop.
Then again, I'm more familiar with US politics than with planetary body behavior*, so you'll have to take that with a grain of salt.
*Except my wife. While she has a planetary body, it in no way resembles the classical representations of Venus that I have seen.
As for choosing a town with "good schools" and choosing a community with "good parents," I think the two criteria are related. The type of person who is likely to seek out a good school system is the type of parent who will be involved in their child's education. Good schools require that parents get involved (among other things).
I think you may have missed the point of the article. It's quite possible to take the time to teach your kids, but have it blow up in your face because the methods of teaching are not optimal.
You seem to have done a great job making sure your daughter is open to traditionally gender-inappropriate areas of interest, and to have challenged her and stimulated her in positive ways. Often, though, parents will say, "C'mon, you're smarter than that" or something similar when their child fails. As failures mount (and they will, learning is a process that requires failure), the child begins to believe that they really aren't that smart, and that a lack of intelligence is why they fail.
What I've taken from the article is that a better way to handle that would be to say, "C'mon, let's figure out how you can be smarter about that problem next time." This implies that intelligence is malleable and trainable.
How have you handled your daughter's failures?
/For the record, I've been doing a lot of reading on the subject lately, as I'm a fairly new father of a girl -- and I'm always looking for insight.
The only concern, other than survival of the "volunteer", would be minimizing the impact of space madness. I suggest not having a red button labeled "Do not push", and not sending any soap along with the passenger.
As for China's attitude towards other "less developed" cultures, I think you've quite a bit of reading to do. China's relations with other states in the 15th century was varied, and assimilation/domination of other cultures was definitely within their repertoire.
Well, I think my wife would be upset if I dated at all...
But my single friends who are dating typically depend on other things to ensure their date is not a big risk. Like only dating people recommended to them by people they trust, or dating people from work for whom they already have a sense of what kind of person they are. Sure, it's not foolproof, but there is SOME kind of vetting process.
Meeting an absolute stranger on the internet and then dating them in person carries a lot of risks that can be mitigated via background check.
My point is, by extension, that any kind of selective breeding leads to eugenics if you follow that logic to its conclusion. If selective breeding is OK for livestock, why would a tool that makes it more efficient be bad?
People selecting mates based on race, based on appearance, based on income, etc., all should be considered as steps on the slippery slope to eugenics if you follow your logic to its conclusion.
Eugenics is widely derided, for lots of reasons. Mostly because it's viewed as state control over human reproduction. However, the means by which eugenics is employed are not the problem -- the problem is how those means are used.
To sum up -- just because cloning could be used for eugenics, doesn't mean it will be -- the trick is to prevent it from being used in such a manner.
Seriously, have you any idea of how few people in a relationship met in bars compared to other means? Or how ubiquitous online dating services have become? This is particularly true for age ranges > 30.
Your point stands about a false sense of security. You'd think that maybe someone smart enough to go online to a dating site would be smart enough to do their own background check; the problem is that there is no assurance that the person they are checking on is actually who they say they are; the dating sites act as a vetting service -- this is what potential daters are paying for.
That said, I think the problem is that people too stupid to do their own background checks actually increase their chance of reproducing through these dating sites. This means that, from an evolutionary standpoint, they are getting some help in propagating their genes. I would like my legislator to propose legislation to ban all people too stupid to perform their own background checks from using dating sites. For the good of the species, please.
Won't someone think of the genome?
[1] Yes, I know, the 90s called, and they want their "The 80s called and want their $FOO back" joke back.
Animal cloning is not done to strengthen a breed -- it does nothing to the genome at all.
Animal cloning is used to preserve a bloodline or even to propagate it, but I don't see how you could claim it's done to strengthen a breed -- do you have any examples of this? A link or two?
Selective breeding is used to strengthen a breed, and this has been done for millenia - both among humans and domesticated animals. Yet there is no outcry over eugenics when someone chooses to only copulate with attractive and/or successful partners.
I ramble a bit, but I'm a little confused as to how you can draw a parallel between cloning and eugenics -- it seems like a bit of a stretch.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010608081621.htm says the exact opposite, from about 6 months earlier than the synopsis you provided.
It's an area of debate, to be sure. My understanding is that (like the mammoth in Eurasia example I used in my OP in this thread) there was negative population pressure from both means -- climate change enabled overkill, but overkill was the ultimate cause of extinction.
Also note that the paper you refer to speaks specifically of the Clovis people of 11000 years ago; it hints at the earlier presence of man in the Americas, but a lot has been published since 2001 on when man came to the Americas. Do you know of any recent research on the topic that I would find helpful? I'm guessing by your userID that you're at minimum a serious hobbiest... if you could point me towards additional enlightening materials I'd appreciate it.
In Eurasia, reduced habitat due to encroaching ice reduced mammoth populations, not just because of less food, but also because it forced the mammoths to migrate to areas where human predation was a bigger problem. Not sure if this is considered the current theory for the cave bear as well.
Can it rock you like a hurricane or summon the winds of change?