When you make a web page that conforms to standards, it is the browser's fault if it cannot render it correctly. Targeting specific browsers is: hard, ugly, mind blowing, and a wasted effort in the long run.
That's fine for your own personal blog. But when you're a company that lives and dies by getting as many users as possible to flock to your banner, you want your site to work in as many browsers as possible.
Do you yourself panic when you might be out of range of an ambulance in case you have a heart attack? I personally have spent 30 days crossing an ocean alone in a small boat, separated from the sea by 3mm of steel. If I had had a major medical emergency I would have likely died but I was not afraid during that time, and I would not be afraid to do it again..
I suppose there is an element of control to it. I've been camping in places where death is a real possibility, and you're right- I didn't fear the entire time that if I were to break a leg, I would certainly die before somebody found me.
Perhaps its similar to how one can be perfectly fine driving a car, but flying in a plane can be harrowing. I've also noticed personally that I'm more tense while riding as a passenger in a car than while driving. Stop signs seem to approach so much faster when it's not my foot on the break pedal.
Also, in your example, there are not many things to go wrong. I'm guessing your boat had at least one backup method of propulsion. A radio that can reach a few miles. Even if the worst happened and your ship broke apart, you'd have a good chance of surviving for a few days without food or water. In space, there are many things to go wrong, and hardly any backup options for those that do.
In that I mean that the participants still know that they are on earth, so why do I need to wait 6 minutes (guessing at a time delta here...) to get a response from 'earth' when I know that it shouldn't take that long.
Because it's part of the experiment, and they know it. Usually, factors like that are minimized in studies, but there isn't much you can do in this case.
Still, I agree that this isn't a very good test. One of the biggest factors on our sanity wasn't part of this test: fear. Even in low orbit, you know that a relatively thin layer of metal is all that protects you from death. If you have a major health issue, there are no ambulances to take you to the ER. Death literally surrounds you every moment you're out there, and living with that for nearly two years would likely take its toll.
In this study, you know you're monitored. If you lose containment, you're safe. If you have a heart attack, they will open the door and come get you. If your wife has a stroke, they'll let you out. Etc. I'd imagine that without knocking a random passerby on the head and waking them up on a fake spacecraft, it is extremely difficult to recreate the feeling of being out there.
It's not so much about being important as about having any chance of paying back the loan. If the money is going to support the arts, there should also be some justification. How many liberal arts majors actually contribute anything useful. I don't know how the hell one would work this.. it's a lot easier to have someone write a paper showing they've done some research and have a viable plan for getting employment after they graduate than to have someone prove they are worth spending on in the hopes they produce some art that society will benefit from.
I'm not so sure that 'likelihood to pay back the loan' should be the only measure here.
For instance, we have ethics to consider- we all know from personal experience that some people have various knacks for things in life. For example, many of us have logical, puzzle-loving brains that are great for programming or engineering, yet couldn't design a great-looking webpage or write a sheet of stirring music to save our greasy hides. Does it feel right to you to deny somebody the chance to better themselves (and civilization) based solely on the fact their brains are wired a little differently? Besides, this logic, taken to its conclusion, would have our schools teach nothing but math and science. What use would art, sports, music, etc be in a world such as this?
It is true that handing out loans that aren't likely to be paid back is a bad business sense (see: current housing market). However, I feel that there may be other options. A different system or sorts? Maybe go back to the apprenticeship days?
Also, it would be interesting to see the results of a study showing the success rate of college graduates between arts & sciences. I have a hunch it would be closer than you think.
I do think there should be a little more oversight to ensure people who get these loans are doing something with at least a reasonable chance of turning into a job. If you want to get a degree in liberal arts or music.. burn your own money.
While it might sound good on paper to only give money to those careers that "matter", one should consider that the arts do provide much of our culture and entertainment.
Besides, do you really want somebody that would normally have been a liberal arts major blundering their way through engineering and building the bridges you drive across?
A simple method of requiring a user to create an account, which could then either be timeslotted or placed in a queue would be the obvious answer. Once it's your turn, you get 10 minutes or whatever. It's the norm today for almost all telescopes.
By the way, I heard on the news the 911 call Phoenix Jones made to report the fight. The dispatcher asked "What are you wearing?", and the awkward pause before he answered "A yellow and black rubber suit" was precious.:)
Granted, I have not listened to this call, but this just lends further weight to my thought that there is some kind of (misplaced?) animosity between these "superheroes" and the police & dispatchers. If I call in an ongoing crime, I wouldn't normally expect the 911 operator to inquire on my current dress.
Nor would I expect them to ignore my call, as seemed to happen frequently in that HBO documentary.
More power to these people. I wish I had their guts and sense of humanity.
You can be a Good Christian(tm) and still get AIDS from your fallen-from-grace spouse.
That's ok. Good Christians know that everything that happens to them is part of God's Plan (tm). So it's alright to contract HIV from your cheating bastard of a spouse.
Right, because no one else has a copy (wayback machine) and no lawyer would think to call them out for destroying evidence and force them to pull out a backup for proof.
You are operating under the (probably false) pretense that they are not ignorant, illogical beings used to making problems of various types disappear through the liberal application of money and power.
*Anonymous Cowards* should not be able to post the first post. That way we might limit these idiotic posts.
Or you can, y'know, just ignore the stupid-but-harmless thing, rather than demand a one-size-fits-all solution to your non-problem?
Posted as AC to prove a point
Your point is rather invalid since your post is not the first. JavaBear's idea would only prevent the first post being created by an AC, not replies to that post.
It's a stolen laptop. "I didn't know it was stolen" is not a valid defense according to US law anymore than "I didn't know the speed limit". If she's somehow wins based on "I didn't know it was stolen" then that will make the "I didn't know" defense valid and suddenly anyone can claim "I didn't know" and get off.
She's not claiming the laptop is hers. She's not fighting that part. What she's fighting is that her expectation of privacy was breached when they intercepted her nude photos and shared them.
Besides her story doesn't really add up, buying a $60 laptop from a student and having it "fixed up" but never finding the tracking software? Somehow she was savvy enough to fix it but not smart enough to find the tracking software really doesn't add up, even if she hired someone to fix it they should have found the software.
So, you don't think it's impossible to find a "broken" laptop for cheap? I'm sure all of us have stories of people having a "broken" computer that only needed a reinstall of an OS, or perhaps a virus cleaning. Many people doesn't understand how the software can be totally fucked and the hardware 100% fine. And if the laptop is a year or two old, it might be worth it for the seller to just go buy a new one anyway, rather than paying Best Buy $300 to format and reinstall the OS.
Also, I've never used such tracking software before (so I could be wrong), but I'd imagine such software is designed to be hard to find or remove. If it were as simple as uninstalling "Laptop Anti-Theft Software version 4.52" from the Add/Remove programs, I don't think many people would buy it. Besides, if she truly did buy it (and I have no reason to doubt her story), than she wouldn't be looking for such software, like a savvy thief might be.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what somebody who was guilty would say.
I didn't see that in the article, but I am sadly not surprised.
When you make a web page that conforms to standards, it is the browser's fault if it cannot render it correctly. Targeting specific browsers is: hard, ugly, mind blowing, and a wasted effort in the long run.
That's fine for your own personal blog. But when you're a company that lives and dies by getting as many users as possible to flock to your banner, you want your site to work in as many browsers as possible.
Oh, you mean sarcasm? That is also a long-standing Slashdot habit.
Holy shit, did they actually manage to unveil a new CPU without forcing a new socket down our throats? I don't believe it.
You seem to be under the impression that this material can only be used for one thing at a time.
Thankfully, NASA doesn't have to wait until the military is finished using it.
Do you yourself panic when you might be out of range of an ambulance in case you have a heart attack? I personally have spent 30 days crossing an ocean alone in a small boat, separated from the sea by 3mm of steel. If I had had a major medical emergency I would have likely died but I was not afraid during that time, and I would not be afraid to do it again..
I suppose there is an element of control to it. I've been camping in places where death is a real possibility, and you're right- I didn't fear the entire time that if I were to break a leg, I would certainly die before somebody found me.
Perhaps its similar to how one can be perfectly fine driving a car, but flying in a plane can be harrowing. I've also noticed personally that I'm more tense while riding as a passenger in a car than while driving. Stop signs seem to approach so much faster when it's not my foot on the break pedal.
Also, in your example, there are not many things to go wrong. I'm guessing your boat had at least one backup method of propulsion. A radio that can reach a few miles. Even if the worst happened and your ship broke apart, you'd have a good chance of surviving for a few days without food or water. In space, there are many things to go wrong, and hardly any backup options for those that do.
In that I mean that the participants still know that they are on earth, so why do I need to wait 6 minutes (guessing at a time delta here...) to get a response from 'earth' when I know that it shouldn't take that long.
Because it's part of the experiment, and they know it. Usually, factors like that are minimized in studies, but there isn't much you can do in this case.
Still, I agree that this isn't a very good test. One of the biggest factors on our sanity wasn't part of this test: fear. Even in low orbit, you know that a relatively thin layer of metal is all that protects you from death. If you have a major health issue, there are no ambulances to take you to the ER. Death literally surrounds you every moment you're out there, and living with that for nearly two years would likely take its toll.
In this study, you know you're monitored. If you lose containment, you're safe. If you have a heart attack, they will open the door and come get you. If your wife has a stroke, they'll let you out. Etc. I'd imagine that without knocking a random passerby on the head and waking them up on a fake spacecraft, it is extremely difficult to recreate the feeling of being out there.
This is always the case. "Rights" are nothing without the power to fight for them.
As sad as it is, might does make right in our world.
It's not so much about being important as about having any chance of paying back the loan. If the money is going to support the arts, there should also be some justification. How many liberal arts majors actually contribute anything useful. I don't know how the hell one would work this.. it's a lot easier to have someone write a paper showing they've done some research and have a viable plan for getting employment after they graduate than to have someone prove they are worth spending on in the hopes they produce some art that society will benefit from.
I'm not so sure that 'likelihood to pay back the loan' should be the only measure here.
For instance, we have ethics to consider- we all know from personal experience that some people have various knacks for things in life. For example, many of us have logical, puzzle-loving brains that are great for programming or engineering, yet couldn't design a great-looking webpage or write a sheet of stirring music to save our greasy hides. Does it feel right to you to deny somebody the chance to better themselves (and civilization) based solely on the fact their brains are wired a little differently? Besides, this logic, taken to its conclusion, would have our schools teach nothing but math and science. What use would art, sports, music, etc be in a world such as this?
It is true that handing out loans that aren't likely to be paid back is a bad business sense (see: current housing market). However, I feel that there may be other options. A different system or sorts? Maybe go back to the apprenticeship days?
Also, it would be interesting to see the results of a study showing the success rate of college graduates between arts & sciences. I have a hunch it would be closer than you think.
I do think there should be a little more oversight to ensure people who get these loans are doing something with at least a reasonable chance of turning into a job. If you want to get a degree in liberal arts or music .. burn your own money.
While it might sound good on paper to only give money to those careers that "matter", one should consider that the arts do provide much of our culture and entertainment.
Besides, do you really want somebody that would normally have been a liberal arts major blundering their way through engineering and building the bridges you drive across?
I can read it just fine.
However, purposely subverting a firewall rule would surely be grounds for getting sacked.
A simple method of requiring a user to create an account, which could then either be timeslotted or placed in a queue would be the obvious answer. Once it's your turn, you get 10 minutes or whatever. It's the norm today for almost all telescopes.
The kind of reader that wishes to stay employed.
That seems the be a common trend among dark lords in general. Not really known for their senses of humor, despite all the MUHAWAHAHA's and such.
Thanks, that's another avenue I hadn't considered. And it's a simpler answer, so it's probably correct.
By the way, I heard on the news the 911 call Phoenix Jones made to report the fight. The dispatcher asked "What are you wearing?", and the awkward pause before he answered "A yellow and black rubber suit" was precious. :)
Granted, I have not listened to this call, but this just lends further weight to my thought that there is some kind of (misplaced?) animosity between these "superheroes" and the police & dispatchers. If I call in an ongoing crime, I wouldn't normally expect the 911 operator to inquire on my current dress.
Nor would I expect them to ignore my call, as seemed to happen frequently in that HBO documentary.
More power to these people. I wish I had their guts and sense of humanity.
Didn't you mean: *slow clap*?
Because it was deserving.
You can be a Good Christian(tm) and still get AIDS from your fallen-from-grace spouse.
That's ok. Good Christians know that everything that happens to them is part of God's Plan (tm). So it's alright to contract HIV from your cheating bastard of a spouse.
Right, because no one else has a copy (wayback machine) and no lawyer would think to call them out for destroying evidence and force them to pull out a backup for proof.
You are operating under the (probably false) pretense that they are not ignorant, illogical beings used to making problems of various types disappear through the liberal application of money and power.
*Anonymous Cowards* should not be able to post the first post. That way we might limit these idiotic posts.
Or you can, y'know, just ignore the stupid-but-harmless thing, rather than demand a one-size-fits-all solution to your non-problem?
Posted as AC to prove a point
Your point is rather invalid since your post is not the first. JavaBear's idea would only prevent the first post being created by an AC, not replies to that post.
This deserves a +10 Funny. You are a true modern marvel, sir or madam.
In the olde daze a pirate was someone who had to work for his money, kill, rape, plunder. Now all he has to do is copy a file.
Hey, setting up rTorrent on a server is hard work!
A sixty foot image of Princess Lea in the middle of the park?
What's not to like?
I've heard her beauty can blind a man.
It's a stolen laptop. "I didn't know it was stolen" is not a valid defense according to US law anymore than "I didn't know the speed limit". If she's somehow wins based on "I didn't know it was stolen" then that will make the "I didn't know" defense valid and suddenly anyone can claim "I didn't know" and get off.
She's not claiming the laptop is hers. She's not fighting that part. What she's fighting is that her expectation of privacy was breached when they intercepted her nude photos and shared them.
Besides her story doesn't really add up, buying a $60 laptop from a student and having it "fixed up" but never finding the tracking software? Somehow she was savvy enough to fix it but not smart enough to find the tracking software really doesn't add up, even if she hired someone to fix it they should have found the software.
So, you don't think it's impossible to find a "broken" laptop for cheap? I'm sure all of us have stories of people having a "broken" computer that only needed a reinstall of an OS, or perhaps a virus cleaning. Many people doesn't understand how the software can be totally fucked and the hardware 100% fine. And if the laptop is a year or two old, it might be worth it for the seller to just go buy a new one anyway, rather than paying Best Buy $300 to format and reinstall the OS.
Also, I've never used such tracking software before (so I could be wrong), but I'd imagine such software is designed to be hard to find or remove. If it were as simple as uninstalling "Laptop Anti-Theft Software version 4.52" from the Add/Remove programs, I don't think many people would buy it. Besides, if she truly did buy it (and I have no reason to doubt her story), than she wouldn't be looking for such software, like a savvy thief might be.