That was a joke, and it was in reference to someone 'flipping out' on you under the influence of coke, which I don't believe was mentioned in the article at all.
"But Knight has discovered, via his work as an SEO, that in the other.01% lies a vast multitude of the most innovative and creative search engines around."
I guess the problem I have with this statement is just how exactly 'innovative' and 'creative' are quantified?
Specifics from the article:
KartOO and Quintura are listed as being particularly innovative and creative. How so? Graphically, maybe, but the 'maps' that these search engines provide seem like a graphical gimmick at best, and downright annoying at worst.
Metasearch engines, while useful, don't strike me as being either particularly innovative or creative; they work well when searching for something particularly obscure, but for a 'day to day' type search, I've often found that even with very specific search criteria I often have to sort through a bunch of useless search results before finding something useful; using a metasearch engine gives me a longer list of worthless resources before finding what I need.
While there is something to be said for creativity and innovation, I've found that for my purposes, a simple interface like google works the best. I'll concede that I may be a fanboy without realizing it, however.
I mentioned before that my 'bad experience' with OO.o was the one that a small company a friend of mine worked for had; he was sick of MS office and I recommended OO.o as an alternative. It's entirely possible that the problems they were having were due to improper installation and/or user error across the board, but even if this is the case, I would say that ease of use and learning curve are considerations for business deployment.
As mentioned in a prior post, it was a recommendation I made to a very small company, and OO.o was running on maybe 11 PCs total? "accounting" for the company consisted of two people. Auditing wasn't really an issue in this case. They worked with spreadsheets because that was what they were familiar with. It wasn't my company, I wasn't calling the shots, and I wasn't the one loading it. To be fair, it could have been setup improperly on their end, but I'm just relaying one scenario.
Which windows version are you using? I ended up taking the fall for recommending deployment of OO.o to a small business network that was a mix of 2000 and XP machines, some prefabricated from Dell, others hand assembled. program would not run reliably on 8 of the 11 machines. Calc in particular crashed often, with less frequent but still excessive crashes in Write and Base. Your mileage may vary, but in my experience the windows build just hasn't been reliable.
OO.o may run under windows, but it does not run well. It crashes more often than is acceptable in any kind of business situation. Sure, you can tell everyone to save often, but try reminding accounting of that AFTER they've lost X hours worth of updates...
If you're going to run OO.o, it should be run under a linux environment. The windows build is questionably reliable at best.
I don't think it's entirely fair or even accurate to compare Microsofts Products to those owned by smaller companys. It's misleading at best and blatantly false at worst to state that any company patches all of its exploits. There are always bugs in software, and usually an exploit to go hand in hand with any given bug. Smaller companys software appears to be more secure simply because their program is not as widespread; Windows, for example, is the most used and most well-known operating system by a considerable margin. Therefore, any exploit found in Windows will become common knowledge quicker, and will be exploited quicker. Indeed, I'd wager that Microsoft's products have been patched to prevent a far larger total number of exploits than just about any other companies products. By the same token, I'd say that many other products are left with a considerable number of unpatched exploits, the difference being that they either haven't been discovered or haven't entered common knowledge yet.
Additionally, the size of the company is, in a sense, a two-edged sword. Sure, Microsoft has a ton of programmers and developers, which would indicate they certainly have the manpower for repairing exploits. However, when you have so many different people working on the same project, you run into problems. If you write a program entirely by yourself, it's relatively easy to look through your own code and see where you messed up. On the other hand, if you worked with a dozen other programmers together on a project, it would be considerably harder to figure out exactly where the issues was. Multiply that difficulty by 1000, and that's where Microsoft is. The term 'clusterfuck' comes to mind...
"Just saying its ok because somebody didn't intend it to be sexist doesn't mean it's not sexist."
I would argue that because spoken language as it is today is a creation of mankind, that there is no absolute meaning to anything, and when it comes down to it, the only meaning associated with something one says is the one that you associate with it. Sarcasm and satire come to mind. What it comes down to is, your words only carry the meaning that you apply to them, and if someone else chooses to interpret it incorrectly, the problem lies with them and not with you. After all, s/he is the one getting all worked up largely over nothing. The feminists who would go up in arms over the usage of the word "man" instead of "person" are the type who are just looking for something to raise hell about.
I find the whole concept we have of speaking in a "politically correct" manner to be foolish and offensive. So in the interests of not offending me, please be "politically correct" by not forcing your "political correctness" upon me.
In an ideal world, yeah, nobody should be able to CONTROL it. But the reality of the situation is that it has to be under someones CONTROL , and it always WILL be under someones CONTROL . Period. No way around that. And yes, the UN CONTROLling the internet is still somebody having CONTROL . And given the UN's tendency to want to be completely diplomatic and politically correct, that CONTROL will likely take the form of censoring whatever it doesn't like. That may filter the garbage, per say, but it will also undoubtedly prevent access to much of what makes the internet enjoyable. Some people may like the idea of a utilitarian internet, but I am many others are not one of them. Regardless of whether I agree with most (or any) of America's policies, considering that the internet must be under somebodys CONTROL , I can't see it being in better hands. America has the virtue of being somewhat restricted in what it can restrict (-1 redundant) by its own constitution. The United Nations, as one example, has no such limitation on how it can excercise that CONTROL .
Thats a good point as well. Statistics on the chances that something could have happened are rather minute when they actually have happened. Even if you only have a one in a billion chance of dying from a random meteorite crashing into your house, if it happens, you're still every bit as dead as if it was a sure thing.
Also playing Devil's Advocate, I can't put much stock in either as a scientific theory. I have my belief, but that is all it is; a belief, and whether my belief leans more towards evolution or intelligent design is immaterial as far as the discussion goes.
Both ideas have their downfalls and their merits. Your argument, however, is somewhat misleading.
What is observable and testable in said bacteria and insects is not, in fact, evolution, but rather natural selection and intra-species adaptation; the emphasis of "strong" traits in the gene pool as opposed to "weak" traits.
While it is certainly irrefutable that a species itself can change over the course of time, as this is observable, it is another thing entirely than to presume that, even given millions of years, one species becomes another entirely different species.
To put natural selection briefly: The cause of variations in the genetic code is a number of miniscule mutations, some of which are helpful, and some of which are harmful. Those individuals which receive 'helpful' mutations are more likely to pass on those mutations, as opposed to those who receive 'harmful' ones.
Many of the traits that give individual species their unique, niche ability to excel in their own habitat require far more than a slight mutation to actually give them an advantage.
As an example, the horned toad has the ability to literally squirt blood from its eyes in order to distract and startle predators.
One change, but requires various changes to the genetic code to be functional; the actual sac that the blood builds up in, the duct that the blood is projected through, the muscles around the sac that constrict to project the blood, the nerves that enable the muscle to contract, and the instinct to use this ability are all different parts of the genetic code, and without any one of these traits, the ability will not work, and the changes do not give the toad an advantage.
Mathematically, it's possible that all of these traits appeared simultaneously, but it's also an extremely minute chance.
Additionally, the 'jump' from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms is a bit of a stretch. What kind of a genetic change is required to make the difference between a 'colony' of individual unicellular organisms to become one single multicellular organism?
Furthermore, the mitochondria and chloroplats found in various cells are believed to have originited as parasites that eventually began to help their host. But these organelles are now a part of each cells genetic code. We already know that traits acquired through an organisms lifespan do not change their genetic code, and a parasitic organism is hardly a trait either.
There are myriad things like these that just don't stand up to the kind of scrutiny that science demands; all theories, scientifically, must be considered to be false until they can be proven; this is how the scientific method works.
Now, admittedly, none of this holds a candle in lack of credibility to the assumption that it was all done by some mythical, supernatural being... however, neither theory is sound enough to declare fact. I'm not willing to declare either as fact, and to cite either fact is belief, religion even. Not science. I find it ironic that so many atheists and agnostics are so religious in their belief in evolutionism, and so many theists try to support their unprovable belief and faith with science.
>>If homosexuals are "just like the rest of us", how come they aren't?
Because it's the examples of the stereotypes that get all the media coverage.
I'd wager if the average heterosexual guy could go to a local "straight" bathhouse for "lots of anonymous sex", he'd probably go for it, and if not, he'd at least consider it. It's not the norm because it's generally not an option. As for the unprotected thing, well, two men can't get each other pregnant, and generally speaking, risk of pregnancy is more worrisome to the average person than risk of stds. Homosexual males are stereotypically promiscuous because Males in general tend towards promiscuity. Females, in general, do not, which is the principle reason that heterosexual males do not.
And there are some heterosexual males who like wine and may or may not write novels.
Radio Broadcasts, Books, TV Series, Audio CDs, Printed Scripts of Radio Broadcasts, Two Movies (second does not count; Adams passed away before it was started), and a video game (does not count, no continuity with story).
Sure, but when you do get both, what you don't get is a giant ship sinking, spilling fuel oil or nuclear waste, weapons (er, and potentially thousands of lives) into the ocean. An economical, strategic, tactical, and ecological bargain.
As I said in reply to another post, this assumes that the vessel saved by the Boom Box Defense allows the attacking vessel to go on its merry way. I somehow don't see that happening. It seems to me that one way or another, theres going to be a damaged or sunken ship on one side or the other.
And on the side where the common sense resides we have this; "Hmm, while it may be harmful to aquatic life, there is no way it is more harmful than sinking a nulear or diesel vessel, spilling untold tonnage of nuclear products and byproducts, diesel fuels, various toxic chemicals stored on ship, aircraft fuels, aircraft, aircraft ordinance, standard ordinance, not to mention the loss of human life."
This IS a valid point, but on the other hand, after succesfully defending themselves from a torpedo attack, is the defending vessel really just going to sit there and let the attacking vessel go on its merry way? Chances are, Boom Box Defense or no, there is going to be one ship or another sinking, or at least spilling some of its contents...
Slashdot Mirror
That was a joke, and it was in reference to someone 'flipping out' on you under the influence of coke, which I don't believe was mentioned in the article at all.
The most violent act ever done under the influence of marijuana would be breaking into a convenience store to get pop tarts.
Except they aren't actually stopping you. Think of it more like watching the highway for a particular car that is known to be stolen.
They still age at one second per second. A second is just longer.
"But Knight has discovered, via his work as an SEO, that in the other .01% lies a vast multitude of the most innovative and creative search engines around."
I guess the problem I have with this statement is just how exactly 'innovative' and 'creative' are quantified?
Specifics from the article:
KartOO and Quintura are listed as being particularly innovative and creative. How so? Graphically, maybe, but the 'maps' that these search engines provide seem like a graphical gimmick at best, and downright annoying at worst.
Metasearch engines, while useful, don't strike me as being either particularly innovative or creative; they work well when searching for something particularly obscure, but for a 'day to day' type search, I've often found that even with very specific search criteria I often have to sort through a bunch of useless search results before finding something useful; using a metasearch engine gives me a longer list of worthless resources before finding what I need.
While there is something to be said for creativity and innovation, I've found that for my purposes, a simple interface like google works the best. I'll concede that I may be a fanboy without realizing it, however.
I mentioned before that my 'bad experience' with OO.o was the one that a small company a friend of mine worked for had; he was sick of MS office and I recommended OO.o as an alternative. It's entirely possible that the problems they were having were due to improper installation and/or user error across the board, but even if this is the case, I would say that ease of use and learning curve are considerations for business deployment.
As mentioned in a prior post, it was a recommendation I made to a very small company, and OO.o was running on maybe 11 PCs total? "accounting" for the company consisted of two people. Auditing wasn't really an issue in this case. They worked with spreadsheets because that was what they were familiar with. It wasn't my company, I wasn't calling the shots, and I wasn't the one loading it. To be fair, it could have been setup improperly on their end, but I'm just relaying one scenario.
Which windows version are you using? I ended up taking the fall for recommending deployment of OO.o to a small business network that was a mix of 2000 and XP machines, some prefabricated from Dell, others hand assembled. program would not run reliably on 8 of the 11 machines. Calc in particular crashed often, with less frequent but still excessive crashes in Write and Base. Your mileage may vary, but in my experience the windows build just hasn't been reliable.
OO.o may run under windows, but it does not run well. It crashes more often than is acceptable in any kind of business situation. Sure, you can tell everyone to save often, but try reminding accounting of that AFTER they've lost X hours worth of updates... If you're going to run OO.o, it should be run under a linux environment. The windows build is questionably reliable at best.
Qbert for the win.
I don't think it's entirely fair or even accurate to compare Microsofts Products to those owned by smaller companys. It's misleading at best and blatantly false at worst to state that any company patches all of its exploits. There are always bugs in software, and usually an exploit to go hand in hand with any given bug. Smaller companys software appears to be more secure simply because their program is not as widespread; Windows, for example, is the most used and most well-known operating system by a considerable margin. Therefore, any exploit found in Windows will become common knowledge quicker, and will be exploited quicker. Indeed, I'd wager that Microsoft's products have been patched to prevent a far larger total number of exploits than just about any other companies products. By the same token, I'd say that many other products are left with a considerable number of unpatched exploits, the difference being that they either haven't been discovered or haven't entered common knowledge yet.
Additionally, the size of the company is, in a sense, a two-edged sword. Sure, Microsoft has a ton of programmers and developers, which would indicate they certainly have the manpower for repairing exploits. However, when you have so many different people working on the same project, you run into problems. If you write a program entirely by yourself, it's relatively easy to look through your own code and see where you messed up. On the other hand, if you worked with a dozen other programmers together on a project, it would be considerably harder to figure out exactly where the issues was. Multiply that difficulty by 1000, and that's where Microsoft is. The term 'clusterfuck' comes to mind...
400 arms, 399 legs, 199 penises and 2 boobies.
"Just saying its ok because somebody didn't intend it to be sexist doesn't mean it's not sexist."
I would argue that because spoken language as it is today is a creation of mankind, that there is no absolute meaning to anything, and when it comes down to it, the only meaning associated with something one says is the one that you associate with it. Sarcasm and satire come to mind. What it comes down to is, your words only carry the meaning that you apply to them, and if someone else chooses to interpret it incorrectly, the problem lies with them and not with you. After all, s/he is the one getting all worked up largely over nothing. The feminists who would go up in arms over the usage of the word "man" instead of "person" are the type who are just looking for something to raise hell about.
I find the whole concept we have of speaking in a "politically correct" manner to be foolish and offensive. So in the interests of not offending me, please be "politically correct" by not forcing your "political correctness" upon me.
Whats more expensive in terms of return on investment? Paying for two and actually getting results, or launching one into space and getting nothing?
In an ideal world, yeah, nobody should be able to CONTROL it. But the reality of the situation is that it has to be under someones CONTROL , and it always WILL be under someones CONTROL . Period. No way around that. And yes, the UN CONTROLling the internet is still somebody having CONTROL . And given the UN's tendency to want to be completely diplomatic and politically correct, that CONTROL will likely take the form of censoring whatever it doesn't like. That may filter the garbage, per say, but it will also undoubtedly prevent access to much of what makes the internet enjoyable. Some people may like the idea of a utilitarian internet, but I am many others are not one of them. Regardless of whether I agree with most (or any) of America's policies, considering that the internet must be under somebodys CONTROL , I can't see it being in better hands. America has the virtue of being somewhat restricted in what it can restrict (-1 redundant) by its own constitution. The United Nations, as one example, has no such limitation on how it can excercise that CONTROL .
No windows server installs IIS by default.
Home-brewed Mead for the win. As long as you don't screw up in the racking process. Beats any beer I've found in America to date.
And as far as getting drunk on the cheap, A cheap bottle of vodka will give you more alcohol for your buck. Beer for the lose.
Thats a good point as well. Statistics on the chances that something could have happened are rather minute when they actually have happened. Even if you only have a one in a billion chance of dying from a random meteorite crashing into your house, if it happens, you're still every bit as dead as if it was a sure thing.
Also playing Devil's Advocate, I can't put much stock in either as a scientific theory. I have my belief, but that is all it is; a belief, and whether my belief leans more towards evolution or intelligent design is immaterial as far as the discussion goes.
Both ideas have their downfalls and their merits. Your argument, however, is somewhat misleading.
What is observable and testable in said bacteria and insects is not, in fact, evolution, but rather natural selection and intra-species adaptation; the emphasis of "strong" traits in the gene pool as opposed to "weak" traits.
While it is certainly irrefutable that a species itself can change over the course of time, as this is observable, it is another thing entirely than to presume that, even given millions of years, one species becomes another entirely different species.
To put natural selection briefly: The cause of variations in the genetic code is a number of miniscule mutations, some of which are helpful, and some of which are harmful. Those individuals which receive 'helpful' mutations are more likely to pass on those mutations, as opposed to those who receive 'harmful' ones.
Many of the traits that give individual species their unique, niche ability to excel in their own habitat require far more than a slight mutation to actually give them an advantage.
As an example, the horned toad has the ability to literally squirt blood from its eyes in order to distract and startle predators.
One change, but requires various changes to the genetic code to be functional; the actual sac that the blood builds up in, the duct that the blood is projected through, the muscles around the sac that constrict to project the blood, the nerves that enable the muscle to contract, and the instinct to use this ability are all different parts of the genetic code, and without any one of these traits, the ability will not work, and the changes do not give the toad an advantage.
Mathematically, it's possible that all of these traits appeared simultaneously, but it's also an extremely minute chance.
Additionally, the 'jump' from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms is a bit of a stretch. What kind of a genetic change is required to make the difference between a 'colony' of individual unicellular organisms to become one single multicellular organism?
Furthermore, the mitochondria and chloroplats found in various cells are believed to have originited as parasites that eventually began to help their host. But these organelles are now a part of each cells genetic code. We already know that traits acquired through an organisms lifespan do not change their genetic code, and a parasitic organism is hardly a trait either.
There are myriad things like these that just don't stand up to the kind of scrutiny that science demands; all theories, scientifically, must be considered to be false until they can be proven; this is how the scientific method works.
Now, admittedly, none of this holds a candle in lack of credibility to the assumption that it was all done by some mythical, supernatural being... however, neither theory is sound enough to declare fact. I'm not willing to declare either as fact, and to cite either fact is belief, religion even. Not science. I find it ironic that so many atheists and agnostics are so religious in their belief in evolutionism, and so many theists try to support their unprovable belief and faith with science.
Science and Belief are two different things.
Remember the scientific method.
They made me rename my character, originally named "AuralSecks". So I choose "Fylaechyau".
>>If homosexuals are "just like the rest of us", how come they aren't? Because it's the examples of the stereotypes that get all the media coverage. I'd wager if the average heterosexual guy could go to a local "straight" bathhouse for "lots of anonymous sex", he'd probably go for it, and if not, he'd at least consider it. It's not the norm because it's generally not an option. As for the unprotected thing, well, two men can't get each other pregnant, and generally speaking, risk of pregnancy is more worrisome to the average person than risk of stds. Homosexual males are stereotypically promiscuous because Males in general tend towards promiscuity. Females, in general, do not, which is the principle reason that heterosexual males do not. And there are some heterosexual males who like wine and may or may not write novels.
Bad link on my part. Thats a compilation of the tv episodes. Hang on, I'm sure I can find a link to the old movie.
8 versions, of which 6 count.
Radio Broadcasts, Books, TV Series, Audio CDs, Printed Scripts of Radio Broadcasts, Two Movies (second does not count; Adams passed away before it was started), and a video game (does not count, no continuity with story).
Sure, but when you do get both, what you don't get is a giant ship sinking, spilling fuel oil or nuclear waste, weapons (er, and potentially thousands of lives) into the ocean. An economical, strategic, tactical, and ecological bargain.
As I said in reply to another post, this assumes that the vessel saved by the Boom Box Defense allows the attacking vessel to go on its merry way. I somehow don't see that happening. It seems to me that one way or another, theres going to be a damaged or sunken ship on one side or the other.
And on the side where the common sense resides we have this; "Hmm, while it may be harmful to aquatic life, there is no way it is more harmful than sinking a nulear or diesel vessel, spilling untold tonnage of nuclear products and byproducts, diesel fuels, various toxic chemicals stored on ship, aircraft fuels, aircraft, aircraft ordinance, standard ordinance, not to mention the loss of human life."
This IS a valid point, but on the other hand, after succesfully defending themselves from a torpedo attack, is the defending vessel really just going to sit there and let the attacking vessel go on its merry way? Chances are, Boom Box Defense or no, there is going to be one ship or another sinking, or at least spilling some of its contents...