US assistance in China during WWII is like US assistance in Iraq today. It's not for the people, for freedom or liberty or any of that propaganda bullshit that the populace eats up and then spits out as justification for being arrogant bastards. It's for the only thing that actually matters: $$$.
This is exactly the problem. Blind users can't see the flashing banner ads! At least for ad-supported sites, they're definitely not a part of the target demogrphics, and they arguably don't generate revenue. So there's no incentive to cater to them. For such sites, anything that provides convenience for the blind is purely coincidence or out of charity.
I don't agree with it, but that's how it is, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. Audio is too linear a medium, and hence takes too long to provide both content and advertisement.
The answer to the article's question is only relevant after GP's question has been answered.
If it is inethical to force web developers to cater to the blind, then it is inethical to assign an ethical value to web developers who do or do not cater to the blind.
Farms are a smart place to put wind turbines. There's a lot of land on a farm, and very little to impede the wind. The cost of putting up a turbine is on the low side while the return is quite high. A suburban home, however, is a little different, which is what TFA is about. The density of such areas means both that there'd be a lot of surrounding objects that could potentially cause impedance, and that the cost of putting up any practical wind turbine would be quite high.
I mean, I guess you could power a few household gadgets with a small turbine on the roof while the wind is blowing, but it definitely won't run the AC system.
...the editors can't even be bothered to read the link and verify the information.
I went to firehose to vote this story down with the reason "not the best". I suggest we all start doing this for all such examples of yellow journalism. Maybe if we do it enough, the editors will start to get a clue.
People have to start realizing that Apple's business practices are no better than Microsoft's. If given a chance, Apple would have done the exact same things Microsoft did. The only thing Apple hasn't done that Microsoft would have is crapped on the MP3 standard, and only because MP3 extends far beyond being a portable media player format.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Apple does not have a monopoly on the desktop; IBM saw to that quite effectively, thank god. Unfortunately, they also contributed directly to the rise of Microsoft...
You'll still need a decent receiver, a machine to stream your movies and music from (besides the PS3), and you'll probably want a good power line conditioner. Likely, you might also want a pre-amp with the amp.
The receiver and computer alone will set you back a thousand or two...
Error: Line 1: Symbol 'family' not recognized in this context. Error: Line 1: Operator 'basement' expected in front of operand 'room'. Compiler exiting with errors.
This would be highly unlikely without a large enough ball.
In order to "escape," you would need to jump the distance from the center to the edge. Or, effectively run with long leaping strides faster than the ball can roll. Since there's no friction between you and the surface while you are in the air, the only time the ball can return to the center is when the person has landed. If you immediately jump forward again, then either you will eventually get to the edge of the ball.
If the ball's movement is dependent on where you land with respect to the center, then you would have to leap slightly to the side every time, and effectively spiral outwards.
Or, if the rotation is faster than you can jump, you can get the ball to do the work for you through momentum and timing by landing farther with each successive jump.
If realism is the goal, global illumination techniques, of which ray tracing and ray casting are a part of, would be your best bet. Yes, rasters have their place. But this is a small place in the grand scheme of things.
All bets are off if the intention is not photorealism. Some hybrid of the two may be best depending on the situation.
i'm sorry, but a free and open network where any media can be transmitted effortlessly and without interception is not a business opportunity. its a replacement for an industry based on distribution. people keep talking about the fact that the music industry could have gotten in front of changing technology and used it to their advantage, rather than change taking place without them while they sat in denial. i have the contrary opinion: i think the music industry would never have been able to get in front of this steamroller... This is the wrong kind of thinking, and the exact same kind of thinking which lead to the lawsuits and attempts to stamp down on digital distribution.
You are wrong because of the success of iTunes. That, in and of itself, shows that online distribution can be, in and of itself, a viable business model.
You are wrong because of the necessity of value-added services that big labels currently do provide. Marketing, for example, is still necessary to gain recognition. Instead of labels taking all of the profits of media sales, they could instead bill the artists directly.
The companies could have capitalized on value-added products, like t-shirts, booklets, pamphlets, etc. as well as the security of actually having a physical copy instead of a digital one. The labels could have used their big distribution network to sell other things besides CD's.
The only difference is that under the new model, the labels' profits wouldn't nearly be as high. They would have to move away from their gluttonous culture. That is, they wouldn't be able to afford to upkeep that tour bus with a built-in pool in the back or the million-dollar bling for their third mistress anymore.
Adaptation is necessary for survival. The music industry as it is now is incompatible with online distribution. But that doesn't mean the labels can't adapt to the times and continue to remain afloat.
This is slightly off topic, but one can either agree that morality (right and wrong) is subjective, and hence is completely open to debate, or morality is objective, and hence there is one and only one (Universal) right. There can be no middle ground.
It is easy to point to the presence of the debate itself as a method of validation for the former side to the argument. However, for the latter, the burden of proof is upon the person making such an assertion. After all, if moral right and wrong are facts, then it can be shown to apply universally, to all and to all situations. Should any situation be morally ambigious, then moral objectivity cannot hold true (one cannot have some morals be objective and some subjective--only that some are subjective and uncommon, and some are subjective and common). The only approach to truly assert truth and fallacy is through mathematics. Unfortunately, this is impossible, and thus most on the latter side emply the second best method, the scientific method.
However, most accounts of conflict show no clear moral line of right and wrong. Some of this is in part, are due to conflicts of social acceptability, conflicts of perception, even conflicts of memory. And even when such conflicts are not relevant, the line that is established will move over time. That we are capable of changing our minds, whether it be slightly, or completely, not attributable to an external force is sufficient to illustrate this point.
Or perhaps, to make the argument more concise, because the invididual as a self is capable of subjectivity, our morals, which are to the best of our ability to prove through scientific inquiry, a property of the system known as the self, are therefore subjective.
The body of science that deals with consciousness and perception unconditionally show this. Thus in order to assert the reality objective morals, one must discredit the scientific method of experimentation and validation--in which case, nothing is or can be proven.
It appears to have hit 6 figures (~108K, at an increase of ~1 signatures per second), but what'd you expect if the petition itself is not on the front page of/. ? I'll bet there'd be at least another 50K signatures if the petition itself had been on the front page this whole time.
So the real culprit is the judge who signs an ex parte order instead of requiring proper notice of motions, as the law requires.
You can blame the judge, but I usually like to presume ignorance until I know otherwise. Rather, I'd blame the lawyers of the RIAA, for not informing the judge of this particular law (which they're not obligated to do, but is a matter of ethics), and for the schools for not appealing based upon this.
IANAL (which makes me either really foolish or really bold to argue with you;) ), but it just seems like judgment made in ignorance of a law that would affect the judgment would be grounds for appeals.
Like an MD, you pay your lawyer more for what he knows than for what he does.
Not quite. A good lawyer, or team of lawyers, should be able to put their knowledge to good use. Just knowing how to defeat someone doesn't mean you actually can.
So you're paying for both, the strategist who comes up with the game plan and the warrior who executes it.
It's the same with surgeons, and even sometimes with general physicians. You wouldn't want to have a needle meant to draw blood going into a nerve, would you?
I kind of agree with everything else though. Well, except that it's far more likely to be: "Sorry Mr. Geek, I don't speek Klingon."
Unfortunately, there is no major WYSIWYG editing suite for PDF. Until there is one, PDF will be no more than a layout format. And, PDF only addresses that which fits properly into pages, i.e. documents and presentations. There's no grid file type outside of Excel as ubiquitous as PDF.
The other major draw of Office is its cohesion. The individual components aren't as integrated as I'd personally like, but it is no trivial thing to be able to insert data from the clipboard into Word as a table what was copied out of Excel. Having Word as the default editor of Outlook's e-mails is, albeit a waste of resources IMHO, very common. And we may all like to rag on it, but VBA being available across all applications is a definite plus from a user perspective.
My favorite text editor on the Windows platform is textpad. It has a powerful set of major features (compare, search across multiple files, regexp search), and numerous minor features that makes my life much easier when working with text files. But at its heart, it's a text editor and wants nothing to do with things unrelated to editing ascii text; it is not the document creator that Word is.
I have never seen this, but if what you observe does generally apply, this may be true as relationships progress from one predominantly of romance to one that is more family-oriented. In fact, I've found more correlation between similar interests and friendship, as well as between similar and contrasting personalities and friendship, than anything related to appearance.
But also remember that the study says nothing about people who look similar being repulsive; they're just not sexually attractive to each other. So perhaps it's a perfect for those who are primarily interested in that "just friends" type of relationship.
In the end, it all comes down to individual perception.
This is true in part because it depends on what the individual looks like.
There was a study some years back that basically established a link between having similar features and being attractive. Essentially, people who shared features with or looked similar to a person would be less attractive to that person, and more familial.
But the wide and obvious variation in what gets people off should've been sufficient indication of this flaw in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
US assistance in China during WWII is like US assistance in Iraq today. It's not for the people, for freedom or liberty or any of that propaganda bullshit that the populace eats up and then spits out as justification for being arrogant bastards. It's for the only thing that actually matters: $$$.
This is exactly the problem. Blind users can't see the flashing banner ads! At least for ad-supported sites, they're definitely not a part of the target demogrphics, and they arguably don't generate revenue. So there's no incentive to cater to them. For such sites, anything that provides convenience for the blind is purely coincidence or out of charity.
I don't agree with it, but that's how it is, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. Audio is too linear a medium, and hence takes too long to provide both content and advertisement.
The answer to the article's question is only relevant after GP's question has been answered.
If it is inethical to force web developers to cater to the blind, then it is inethical to assign an ethical value to web developers who do or do not cater to the blind.
Farms are a smart place to put wind turbines. There's a lot of land on a farm, and very little to impede the wind. The cost of putting up a turbine is on the low side while the return is quite high. A suburban home, however, is a little different, which is what TFA is about. The density of such areas means both that there'd be a lot of surrounding objects that could potentially cause impedance, and that the cost of putting up any practical wind turbine would be quite high.
I mean, I guess you could power a few household gadgets with a small turbine on the roof while the wind is blowing, but it definitely won't run the AC system.
...the editors can't even be bothered to read the link and verify the information.
I went to firehose to vote this story down with the reason "not the best". I suggest we all start doing this for all such examples of yellow journalism. Maybe if we do it enough, the editors will start to get a clue.
People have to start realizing that Apple's business practices are no better than Microsoft's. If given a chance, Apple would have done the exact same things Microsoft did. The only thing Apple hasn't done that Microsoft would have is crapped on the MP3 standard, and only because MP3 extends far beyond being a portable media player format.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Apple does not have a monopoly on the desktop; IBM saw to that quite effectively, thank god. Unfortunately, they also contributed directly to the rise of Microsoft...
You'll still need a decent receiver, a machine to stream your movies and music from (besides the PS3), and you'll probably want a good power line conditioner. Likely, you might also want a pre-amp with the amp.
The receiver and computer alone will set you back a thousand or two...
Error: Line 1: Symbol 'family' not recognized in this context.
Error: Line 1: Operator 'basement' expected in front of operand 'room'.
Compiler exiting with errors.
This would be highly unlikely without a large enough ball.
In order to "escape," you would need to jump the distance from the center to the edge. Or, effectively run with long leaping strides faster than the ball can roll. Since there's no friction between you and the surface while you are in the air, the only time the ball can return to the center is when the person has landed. If you immediately jump forward again, then either you will eventually get to the edge of the ball.
If the ball's movement is dependent on where you land with respect to the center, then you would have to leap slightly to the side every time, and effectively spiral outwards.
Or, if the rotation is faster than you can jump, you can get the ball to do the work for you through momentum and timing by landing farther with each successive jump.
If realism is the goal, global illumination techniques, of which ray tracing and ray casting are a part of, would be your best bet. Yes, rasters have their place. But this is a small place in the grand scheme of things.
All bets are off if the intention is not photorealism. Some hybrid of the two may be best depending on the situation.
You are wrong because of the success of iTunes. That, in and of itself, shows that online distribution can be, in and of itself, a viable business model.
You are wrong because of the necessity of value-added services that big labels currently do provide. Marketing, for example, is still necessary to gain recognition. Instead of labels taking all of the profits of media sales, they could instead bill the artists directly.
The companies could have capitalized on value-added products, like t-shirts, booklets, pamphlets, etc. as well as the security of actually having a physical copy instead of a digital one. The labels could have used their big distribution network to sell other things besides CD's.
The only difference is that under the new model, the labels' profits wouldn't nearly be as high. They would have to move away from their gluttonous culture. That is, they wouldn't be able to afford to upkeep that tour bus with a built-in pool in the back or the million-dollar bling for their third mistress anymore.
Adaptation is necessary for survival. The music industry as it is now is incompatible with online distribution. But that doesn't mean the labels can't adapt to the times and continue to remain afloat.
It's a good first step to true global illumination.
Progress doesn't always come in leaps and bounds. Sometimes, it's about baby steps.
If you switch, your first choice is always better. If you switch again, your second choice is always better.
This is slightly off topic, but one can either agree that morality (right and wrong) is subjective, and hence is completely open to debate, or morality is objective, and hence there is one and only one (Universal) right. There can be no middle ground.
It is easy to point to the presence of the debate itself as a method of validation for the former side to the argument. However, for the latter, the burden of proof is upon the person making such an assertion. After all, if moral right and wrong are facts, then it can be shown to apply universally, to all and to all situations. Should any situation be morally ambigious, then moral objectivity cannot hold true (one cannot have some morals be objective and some subjective--only that some are subjective and uncommon, and some are subjective and common). The only approach to truly assert truth and fallacy is through mathematics. Unfortunately, this is impossible, and thus most on the latter side emply the second best method, the scientific method.
However, most accounts of conflict show no clear moral line of right and wrong. Some of this is in part, are due to conflicts of social acceptability, conflicts of perception, even conflicts of memory. And even when such conflicts are not relevant, the line that is established will move over time. That we are capable of changing our minds, whether it be slightly, or completely, not attributable to an external force is sufficient to illustrate this point.
Or perhaps, to make the argument more concise, because the invididual as a self is capable of subjectivity, our morals, which are to the best of our ability to prove through scientific inquiry, a property of the system known as the self, are therefore subjective.
The body of science that deals with consciousness and perception unconditionally show this. Thus in order to assert the reality objective morals, one must discredit the scientific method of experimentation and validation--in which case, nothing is or can be proven.
No, those come from the prost...err, escorts.
It appears to have hit 6 figures (~108K, at an increase of ~1 signatures per second), but what'd you expect if the petition itself is not on the front page of /. ? I'll bet there'd be at least another 50K signatures if the petition itself had been on the front page this whole time.
Where does one sign up?
I weigh less than 140 and am 6 feet tall. I also don't use gloves, and he's free to do the same.
Sounds edible to me.
A bowl of blogospheres and a coffee please.
So the real culprit is the judge who signs an ex parte order instead of requiring proper notice of motions, as the law requires.
;) ), but it just seems like judgment made in ignorance of a law that would affect the judgment would be grounds for appeals.
You can blame the judge, but I usually like to presume ignorance until I know otherwise. Rather, I'd blame the lawyers of the RIAA, for not informing the judge of this particular law (which they're not obligated to do, but is a matter of ethics), and for the schools for not appealing based upon this.
IANAL (which makes me either really foolish or really bold to argue with you
Like an MD, you pay your lawyer more for what he knows than for what he does.
Not quite. A good lawyer, or team of lawyers, should be able to put their knowledge to good use. Just knowing how to defeat someone doesn't mean you actually can.
So you're paying for both, the strategist who comes up with the game plan and the warrior who executes it.
It's the same with surgeons, and even sometimes with general physicians. You wouldn't want to have a needle meant to draw blood going into a nerve, would you?
I kind of agree with everything else though. Well, except that it's far more likely to be: "Sorry Mr. Geek, I don't speek Klingon."
You watch all your porn on mute too?
Unfortunately, there is no major WYSIWYG editing suite for PDF. Until there is one, PDF will be no more than a layout format. And, PDF only addresses that which fits properly into pages, i.e. documents and presentations. There's no grid file type outside of Excel as ubiquitous as PDF.
The other major draw of Office is its cohesion. The individual components aren't as integrated as I'd personally like, but it is no trivial thing to be able to insert data from the clipboard into Word as a table what was copied out of Excel. Having Word as the default editor of Outlook's e-mails is, albeit a waste of resources IMHO, very common. And we may all like to rag on it, but VBA being available across all applications is a definite plus from a user perspective.
My favorite text editor on the Windows platform is textpad. It has a powerful set of major features (compare, search across multiple files, regexp search), and numerous minor features that makes my life much easier when working with text files. But at its heart, it's a text editor and wants nothing to do with things unrelated to editing ascii text; it is not the document creator that Word is.
I have never seen this, but if what you observe does generally apply, this may be true as relationships progress from one predominantly of romance to one that is more family-oriented. In fact, I've found more correlation between similar interests and friendship, as well as between similar and contrasting personalities and friendship, than anything related to appearance.
But also remember that the study says nothing about people who look similar being repulsive; they're just not sexually attractive to each other. So perhaps it's a perfect for those who are primarily interested in that "just friends" type of relationship.
In the end, it all comes down to individual perception.
This is true in part because it depends on what the individual looks like.
There was a study some years back that basically established a link between having similar features and being attractive. Essentially, people who shared features with or looked similar to a person would be less attractive to that person, and more familial.
But the wide and obvious variation in what gets people off should've been sufficient indication of this flaw in the first place.
Except they still show up in Google News as being real.