You only have to explain this to the user if they are your customer or employer, in which case you should have explained to them upfront that they could have a consistent UI with a good budget and some time, or an inconsistent GUI cheap and quick. Complaining because someone else already did a tremendous amount of work for you and gave you the software you want to use, but neglected to make it visually consistent with your preferred theme, is absurd.
Firefox went full retard a little while back, I expect they will be releasing a rev. that fixes a single typo in a dialogue somewhere as Firefox V.278 by next Xmas.
If webkit is really so great how come none of the browsers that use it are? For all the problems with firefox (show stopper bugs sitting bugzilla for a decade without being addressed come to mind) it's not like the other browsers dont suck.
They dont approve kits. They do have to approve the finished airplane before you fly it. And you do have to be licensed, although the 'light sport' licensing is significantly easier.
None of this is specific to this particular project. People have been selling, building, and flying kit planes for many decades now.
An excellent reminder of several points many people may well be smugly ignoring.
That said, you show a good bit of the old conspiracy-paranoia stuff too.
"Search enough, and you'll arrive at some lone individuals who cry out their system is compromised and nothing in their attempts can shake it of some 'strange infection'. These posts receive the same behavior as I said above, but often they are lone posts which receive no answer at all, AT ALL! While other posts are quickly and kindly replied to and the 'strange infection' posts are left to age and end up in a lost pile of old threads."
Well, doh, what do you expect to happen? You keep implying this is the result of some cover-up or wide-ranged conspiracy, which is no more rational than the smugness you criticize.
When someone posts something like that, there are two possibilities. There is your APT, sure, and there is what we call user error. The odds are pretty heavily in favour of the latter, but either is *possible.* I've heard these tales from customers, not strangers on a message board on the internet but customers whose machines I am being paid to fix, many times over the years. I've investigated. I've found some user error, some hardware failure, some essentially run of the mill malware with some twist or other on occasion, the most interesting one apparently having been planted by an overzealous PI hired by a real mensch of an ex-husband, but the sort of attacks you are talking about? Never seen that. Dont know anyone that has.
Does that mean it doesnt happen? Of course not. We all know those sorts of attacks are now happening, between state level attackers. And I suspect it's been going on longer and much further along than most would imagine. All true.
But think about this, that guy posting? I've been called to fix his machine, or someone apparently much like him, a few times now. He has such a sophisticated piece of malware that there is nothing I can do to even prove it exists, yet it is not sophisticated enough but what he knows it is there. Just think about that one for a second.
I am convinced these people are often under psychiatric care, and need to be. I, myself, am not a psychiatrist.
So I dont need to be part of any conspiracy to skip over that post and use my time to try and help someone I *am* equipped to help.
If the laws did not exist there would be nothing to work out. This isnt a case where any sort of attack or theft has occured after all. It's a dispute over a statutory monopoly privilege - it's a problem invented and created by lawyers many of whom profit from it.
Eh, I didnt think I was disagreeing with you originally, just trying to point out how the loose semantics muddled your point. Looking back I did poor job of that, sorry. But now I do disagree with you.
There is no, can be no, "Linux the desktop OS" only various desktop OSs that use linux (and moreso GNU.) The difference is important. You can compare, say, a specific version of Debian, or Redhat, or Slack, or whatever to Windows, but you cannot compare 'linux' to windows that just doesnt make any sense. People that really do understand what they are talking about still confuse themselves by talking so loosely about it, and people that arent very technically adept can be powerfully mislead.
Semantics is important and this is a good example of why. 'Linux' and 'Windows' are apples and oranges. Linux doesnt specify or include any sort of GUI, it's just a darned good kernel you are allowed to build whatever you want on top of it.
While that's true, I think there's a scientific question in there; it's just difficult to word the question in a non-teleological way. I suppose you could say, "Does 'junk DNA' have a practical function (to either the individual organism or to the species) and if so, what is it?"
If I could I'd give you a +1 insightful for that. You understand. I have to hope the gentleman quoted in the article does too, but if he does he's guilty of simply atrocious semantic hygiene. Or egregiously misquoted perhaps.
It's a critically important point he is making, and that just makes it all the more frustrating that his examples are mostly really poor ones. It's been a few years since my biology classes but "Why does sexuality occur at all, since it is fully one-half as efficient in projecting genes into the future compared with its asexual alternative?" seems adequately explained - assortment of genes has significant benefits despite its inferior efficiency in a very narrow sense. And of course it's not like once sexual reproduction evolves asexual reproduction ends. The peculiarities of human females he mentions have at the very least quite plausible explanations that were old when I was in school. Monogenesis of modern humans is strongly supported by the evidence and the only significant dissent seems to come from states that specifically encourage multi-regional genesis theories for nationalist reasons.
But the worst of it is probably "What is the purpose of all that "junk DNA"?" That is not a scientific question. It's a teleological question. The fact that a man can actually lecture on 'science' for 40 years in this country without knowing the difference is really all that needs to be said.
Private corporation simply refers to money pooling
I have had this discussion many times, since it's a common anarcho-capitalist delusion. It's just not true. The issue is not money-pooling per se, the issues include the particular conditions which attach, to whom, and how.
but cartels and gangs do the same thing today without signing a single document.
This is true, but there is a huge difference. Cartels and gangs are dwarf governments, wannabe governments, that dont quite raise to the level of having a monopoly of force even in their own strongholds. They can do a tremendous amount of damage to lots of innocent people, I dont want to minimise that, but they are still on a lesser scale of danger - unless they, like the corps, engage in regulatory capture as well. Which is occasionally discovered and reported, and I am convinced must happen much more often than most suspect.
Eliminate companies and you also have to eliminate sharing as well so that no social construct that is the same or similar can be created.
You cant eliminate companies in the broadest possible sense, and I was careful not to imply that. But there were all sorts of corporate forms in the sense of capital pooling long before the kings realised they could get rich by forming monopoly corporations, and it would be forms like that, not like what rules our economy today, which could exist in a free market.
How do you think the first kings were appointed? Short straws?
The early kings were generally elected believe it or not. The king was also the high priest, and it was believed that as long as he performed that job properly then $deities would not visit any disasters on the people, but they would prosper. Because whenever anything really bad happened, something bad enough to affect the whole people, certainly the only possible cause could be angry $deity. So if there was a long drought, or a military disaster,, or possibly even just an eclipse, the kings throne could be a very hot seat.
Kings didnt have a set term like a modern governor, but they were subject to recall. And some were recalled. Often though not always this involved the demise of the deposed.
The catholic church actually exploited this fact quite effectively to bring scandinavia which had never been under roman rule into their domain. It was always the kings who converted, and then tried to force the people to convert. If the king failed he died and the clans elected a new one but the church would wait a few years and then send more monks and try again.
The reason the kings were suckers for this new religion that their neighbors were rarely enthused about? Their positions were notoriously insecure, they were as described, an elected high chief, and if they screwed up or just had some rotten luck they could be gone very quickly and a rival sitting on the throne and enjoying their perks. The 'divine right of kings' was tailor made to bring them in, and now I feel like Paul Harvey.
Scale free network? Speculative, may or may not apply, doesnt really matter if it does. You said 'inequities' (the same word I used) but then go on to equate it with 'inequalities' as if they were equivelant. They are not. If I am 5'10 and you are 5'11 that's an inequality, but it's not an inequity.
If I show up on time, do my job well, and you have the same job, usually show up late, and usually someone else has to fix your messes before the jobs close, and we both get the same pay; well that would not be an inequality, but it would be an inequity.
Inequality isnt a problem per se - it's when it occurs on such a scale as to effectively create different classes of citizens that it is objectionable. And that is something that a single person, without the sort of special privilege that only a state can provide, and working with a single human lifetime, needs talent, hard work, and tons of luck to even get close to - and he only gets to enjoy it a short time before he dies. There's nothing inequitable about that, since he could only achieve the result by providing people with goods or services they wanted, at a price they were happy to pay, rather than simply cultivating legislatures for the purpose of raising subsidies.
"Money makes money faster than labor. That's just how economics works." No, it's not. That's how a mixed (i.e. unfree, over-regulated) economy works, because the state has the power to tilt the playing field, which means that rent-seeking becomes obligatory - if you dont play the game and capture the regulators yourself, your competitors will and they will take your business as a result. Take away the ability of the state to choose winners and losers like that, restore a true free market, and money and labour like everything else would naturally seek a balance point based on supply and demand, without the state laying it's heavy finger on one side of the scale and privileging the wealthy and connected interests over the common good.
When the entire city, including the roadways, police, education system is owned by a private corporation
What you refer to as a 'private corporation' is one of the things that simply would not exist in a free market, so it obviously could not wind up owning a city.
Without specific provisions(like say, government regulation) to stop this, inequality will rule until the poor rise up and slaughter everyone.
You actually have it backwards. Gross inequities arise out of government regulation to begin with, and mechanics like regulatory capture effectively ensure that the more power the government has to 'regulate' the more that the government effectively re-enforces and entrenches those inequities. The stories you have been taught of the 'gilded age' will have many half truths and deceptions, probably the largest being the lack of mention that each and every 'robber baron' owed his success to lobbyists and friendly congressmen, not some mythical free market which didnt actually exist.
I really have no idea of the proportion of this stuff that is new and the proportion that is old - I have heard wildly differing claims. If it's mostly decades old material that just keeps getting passed around then it may be impossible to do as you suggest.
You may say you know there is a difference but you proceed to go off in la-la-land as if you didnt know. So just to be clear - it's about freedom, not price. Having a situation where you can contract *whoever you want* to do the work is entirely different from being beholden to a monopoly supplier.
You are wrong, and here is why. You dont need to be able to modify the source yourself in order to benefit from it. There are these things called markets, you see. Free software enables a free market, without artificial barriers to entry, and you dont need to be able to make customisations personally to benefit from this.
Actually no 4g networks or devices exist on earth. And the article you linked substantiates that. So not only is AU right in this instance to slap down Apple, their next step should be to slap down all the idiots currently advertising 4g service in australia but not delivering it.
Of course, that's where it breaks down. Giving fanbois a consolation prize. You can always defend Apple by attacking everyone else in the market.
That is a truly bizaare response. An eye for an eye might justify killing the killers. It doesnt justify bombing people that had nothing to do with it, years after the fact.
using man-made tools to go after people who have expressed in both word and deed they want to kill us.
You mean people like Tariq Aziz and his 12 year old cousin? There is no evidence that they expressed any such wish at any point. Wouldnt be surprising if their families feel that way now, though.
The senseless murder of people by other people has been going on for a long time and will unfortunately continue for at least the near future. But developing and producing better water purifiers does nothing to encourage it.
I have had that accusation flung at me before, but it's a matter of wilful ignorance on their part. I dont advocate violating the copyright on proprietary software. I DO argue that I have never and will not accept any EULAs, and use any proprietary software I am forced to use under copyright law as is, without asking for or accepting any additional permissions or restrictions, and without ever in my life taking seriously the idea that an unreadable page of gibberish, presented to me *after* purchase along with a demand that I must accept it, even remotely resembles a valid and binding contract, or a license either, for that matter.
But rejecting EULAs is not the same thing as rejecting copyright, not at all. And unlike any EULA I have ever seen, the GPL is actually a *license* in both form and spirit. The GPL explicitly agrees with me (and with copyright law) that I dont need a license to use either the binaries or the software itself, only to engage in activities otherwise prohibited by copyright law such as distribution. Since I dont often engage in such activities, I rarely accept even the GPL, but I have no problem doing so when necessary - i.e. in order to distribute a derived work.
But a EULA? When would I ever conceivably need to agree to that? What benefit would I derive from it? The right to use the binary? Already mine under both copyright and common law. The right to distribute modified binaries? Oops, the EULA doesnt grant that. So it has no purpose other than legal intimidation.
How exactly would detection of reforestation help to 'detect and respond to deforestation before it expands'? You appear to just be inventing "political bias" for the sake of advancing your own rhetoric.
I'll confess I found his initial post looking a bit trollish, in the classical sense. I wasnt sure, and still am not completely sure, exactly what he is up to.
But if the tool is to give a complete view surely it should pay the same attention to regrowth as destruction.
Spotting deforestation quickly so that a proper investigation can be done is hard to argue against on its face. But selectively highlighting every instance of deforestation, while studiously ignoring all the regrowth events, does seem like bias. It can be confidently predicted that this will generate a steady stream of reports of negative events, and in the absence of a comparable stream of reports about positive events, human psychology allows us to predict the result will be many people believing that the forests are shrinking even if in fact they are growing on net.
This belief will be quite valuable to certain political interests, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
You only have to explain this to the user if they are your customer or employer, in which case you should have explained to them upfront that they could have a consistent UI with a good budget and some time, or an inconsistent GUI cheap and quick. Complaining because someone else already did a tremendous amount of work for you and gave you the software you want to use, but neglected to make it visually consistent with your preferred theme, is absurd.
Firefox went full retard a little while back, I expect they will be releasing a rev. that fixes a single typo in a dialogue somewhere as Firefox V.278 by next Xmas.
If webkit is really so great how come none of the browsers that use it are? For all the problems with firefox (show stopper bugs sitting bugzilla for a decade without being addressed come to mind) it's not like the other browsers dont suck.
They dont approve kits. They do have to approve the finished airplane before you fly it. And you do have to be licensed, although the 'light sport' licensing is significantly easier.
None of this is specific to this particular project. People have been selling, building, and flying kit planes for many decades now.
An excellent reminder of several points many people may well be smugly ignoring.
That said, you show a good bit of the old conspiracy-paranoia stuff too.
"Search enough, and you'll arrive at some lone individuals who cry out their system is compromised and nothing in their attempts can shake it of some 'strange infection'. These posts receive the same behavior as I said above, but often they are lone posts which receive no answer at all, AT ALL! While other posts are quickly and kindly replied to and the 'strange infection' posts are left to age and end up in a lost pile of old threads."
Well, doh, what do you expect to happen? You keep implying this is the result of some cover-up or wide-ranged conspiracy, which is no more rational than the smugness you criticize.
When someone posts something like that, there are two possibilities. There is your APT, sure, and there is what we call user error. The odds are pretty heavily in favour of the latter, but either is *possible.* I've heard these tales from customers, not strangers on a message board on the internet but customers whose machines I am being paid to fix, many times over the years. I've investigated. I've found some user error, some hardware failure, some essentially run of the mill malware with some twist or other on occasion, the most interesting one apparently having been planted by an overzealous PI hired by a real mensch of an ex-husband, but the sort of attacks you are talking about? Never seen that. Dont know anyone that has.
Does that mean it doesnt happen? Of course not. We all know those sorts of attacks are now happening, between state level attackers. And I suspect it's been going on longer and much further along than most would imagine. All true.
But think about this, that guy posting? I've been called to fix his machine, or someone apparently much like him, a few times now. He has such a sophisticated piece of malware that there is nothing I can do to even prove it exists, yet it is not sophisticated enough but what he knows it is there. Just think about that one for a second.
I am convinced these people are often under psychiatric care, and need to be. I, myself, am not a psychiatrist.
So I dont need to be part of any conspiracy to skip over that post and use my time to try and help someone I *am* equipped to help.
If the laws did not exist there would be nothing to work out. This isnt a case where any sort of attack or theft has occured after all. It's a dispute over a statutory monopoly privilege - it's a problem invented and created by lawyers many of whom profit from it.
Eh, I didnt think I was disagreeing with you originally, just trying to point out how the loose semantics muddled your point. Looking back I did poor job of that, sorry. But now I do disagree with you. There is no, can be no, "Linux the desktop OS" only various desktop OSs that use linux (and moreso GNU.) The difference is important. You can compare, say, a specific version of Debian, or Redhat, or Slack, or whatever to Windows, but you cannot compare 'linux' to windows that just doesnt make any sense. People that really do understand what they are talking about still confuse themselves by talking so loosely about it, and people that arent very technically adept can be powerfully mislead.
No one but you read that and thought it had anything to do with a government agency. Investigative journalism, look it up.
Semantics is important and this is a good example of why. 'Linux' and 'Windows' are apples and oranges. Linux doesnt specify or include any sort of GUI, it's just a darned good kernel you are allowed to build whatever you want on top of it.
If I could I'd give you a +1 insightful for that. You understand. I have to hope the gentleman quoted in the article does too, but if he does he's guilty of simply atrocious semantic hygiene. Or egregiously misquoted perhaps.
It's a critically important point he is making, and that just makes it all the more frustrating that his examples are mostly really poor ones. It's been a few years since my biology classes but "Why does sexuality occur at all, since it is fully one-half as efficient in projecting genes into the future compared with its asexual alternative?" seems adequately explained - assortment of genes has significant benefits despite its inferior efficiency in a very narrow sense. And of course it's not like once sexual reproduction evolves asexual reproduction ends. The peculiarities of human females he mentions have at the very least quite plausible explanations that were old when I was in school. Monogenesis of modern humans is strongly supported by the evidence and the only significant dissent seems to come from states that specifically encourage multi-regional genesis theories for nationalist reasons.
But the worst of it is probably "What is the purpose of all that "junk DNA"?" That is not a scientific question. It's a teleological question. The fact that a man can actually lecture on 'science' for 40 years in this country without knowing the difference is really all that needs to be said.
I have had this discussion many times, since it's a common anarcho-capitalist delusion. It's just not true. The issue is not money-pooling per se, the issues include the particular conditions which attach, to whom, and how.
This is true, but there is a huge difference. Cartels and gangs are dwarf governments, wannabe governments, that dont quite raise to the level of having a monopoly of force even in their own strongholds. They can do a tremendous amount of damage to lots of innocent people, I dont want to minimise that, but they are still on a lesser scale of danger - unless they, like the corps, engage in regulatory capture as well. Which is occasionally discovered and reported, and I am convinced must happen much more often than most suspect.
You cant eliminate companies in the broadest possible sense, and I was careful not to imply that. But there were all sorts of corporate forms in the sense of capital pooling long before the kings realised they could get rich by forming monopoly corporations, and it would be forms like that, not like what rules our economy today, which could exist in a free market.
The early kings were generally elected believe it or not. The king was also the high priest, and it was believed that as long as he performed that job properly then $deities would not visit any disasters on the people, but they would prosper. Because whenever anything really bad happened, something bad enough to affect the whole people, certainly the only possible cause could be angry $deity. So if there was a long drought, or a military disaster,, or possibly even just an eclipse, the kings throne could be a very hot seat.
Kings didnt have a set term like a modern governor, but they were subject to recall. And some were recalled. Often though not always this involved the demise of the deposed.
The catholic church actually exploited this fact quite effectively to bring scandinavia which had never been under roman rule into their domain. It was always the kings who converted, and then tried to force the people to convert. If the king failed he died and the clans elected a new one but the church would wait a few years and then send more monks and try again.
The reason the kings were suckers for this new religion that their neighbors were rarely enthused about? Their positions were notoriously insecure, they were as described, an elected high chief, and if they screwed up or just had some rotten luck they could be gone very quickly and a rival sitting on the throne and enjoying their perks. The 'divine right of kings' was tailor made to bring them in, and now I feel like Paul Harvey.
Where are you wrong? I see a few spots.
Scale free network? Speculative, may or may not apply, doesnt really matter if it does. You said 'inequities' (the same word I used) but then go on to equate it with 'inequalities' as if they were equivelant. They are not. If I am 5'10 and you are 5'11 that's an inequality, but it's not an inequity.
If I show up on time, do my job well, and you have the same job, usually show up late, and usually someone else has to fix your messes before the jobs close, and we both get the same pay; well that would not be an inequality, but it would be an inequity.
Inequality isnt a problem per se - it's when it occurs on such a scale as to effectively create different classes of citizens that it is objectionable. And that is something that a single person, without the sort of special privilege that only a state can provide, and working with a single human lifetime, needs talent, hard work, and tons of luck to even get close to - and he only gets to enjoy it a short time before he dies. There's nothing inequitable about that, since he could only achieve the result by providing people with goods or services they wanted, at a price they were happy to pay, rather than simply cultivating legislatures for the purpose of raising subsidies.
"Money makes money faster than labor. That's just how economics works." No, it's not. That's how a mixed (i.e. unfree, over-regulated) economy works, because the state has the power to tilt the playing field, which means that rent-seeking becomes obligatory - if you dont play the game and capture the regulators yourself, your competitors will and they will take your business as a result. Take away the ability of the state to choose winners and losers like that, restore a true free market, and money and labour like everything else would naturally seek a balance point based on supply and demand, without the state laying it's heavy finger on one side of the scale and privileging the wealthy and connected interests over the common good.
What you refer to as a 'private corporation' is one of the things that simply would not exist in a free market, so it obviously could not wind up owning a city.
You actually have it backwards. Gross inequities arise out of government regulation to begin with, and mechanics like regulatory capture effectively ensure that the more power the government has to 'regulate' the more that the government effectively re-enforces and entrenches those inequities. The stories you have been taught of the 'gilded age' will have many half truths and deceptions, probably the largest being the lack of mention that each and every 'robber baron' owed his success to lobbyists and friendly congressmen, not some mythical free market which didnt actually exist.
In other words Pluto was demoted solely to prevent Eris from being acknowledged. I knew it!
I really have no idea of the proportion of this stuff that is new and the proportion that is old - I have heard wildly differing claims. If it's mostly decades old material that just keeps getting passed around then it may be impossible to do as you suggest.
You may say you know there is a difference but you proceed to go off in la-la-land as if you didnt know. So just to be clear - it's about freedom, not price. Having a situation where you can contract *whoever you want* to do the work is entirely different from being beholden to a monopoly supplier.
You are wrong, and here is why. You dont need to be able to modify the source yourself in order to benefit from it. There are these things called markets, you see. Free software enables a free market, without artificial barriers to entry, and you dont need to be able to make customisations personally to benefit from this.
No, moron, those arent 4g. Read the fine print. 1gb/s for low mobility users? Not even close.
Actually no 4g networks or devices exist on earth. And the article you linked substantiates that. So not only is AU right in this instance to slap down Apple, their next step should be to slap down all the idiots currently advertising 4g service in australia but not delivering it.
Of course, that's where it breaks down. Giving fanbois a consolation prize. You can always defend Apple by attacking everyone else in the market.
That is a truly bizaare response. An eye for an eye might justify killing the killers. It doesnt justify bombing people that had nothing to do with it, years after the fact.
You mean people like Tariq Aziz and his 12 year old cousin? There is no evidence that they expressed any such wish at any point. Wouldnt be surprising if their families feel that way now, though.
I have to disagree with you.
The senseless murder of people by other people has been going on for a long time and will unfortunately continue for at least the near future. But developing and producing better water purifiers does nothing to encourage it.
No true scotsman aside, you are quite correct.
I have had that accusation flung at me before, but it's a matter of wilful ignorance on their part. I dont advocate violating the copyright on proprietary software. I DO argue that I have never and will not accept any EULAs, and use any proprietary software I am forced to use under copyright law as is, without asking for or accepting any additional permissions or restrictions, and without ever in my life taking seriously the idea that an unreadable page of gibberish, presented to me *after* purchase along with a demand that I must accept it, even remotely resembles a valid and binding contract, or a license either, for that matter.
But rejecting EULAs is not the same thing as rejecting copyright, not at all. And unlike any EULA I have ever seen, the GPL is actually a *license* in both form and spirit. The GPL explicitly agrees with me (and with copyright law) that I dont need a license to use either the binaries or the software itself, only to engage in activities otherwise prohibited by copyright law such as distribution. Since I dont often engage in such activities, I rarely accept even the GPL, but I have no problem doing so when necessary - i.e. in order to distribute a derived work.
But a EULA? When would I ever conceivably need to agree to that? What benefit would I derive from it? The right to use the binary? Already mine under both copyright and common law. The right to distribute modified binaries? Oops, the EULA doesnt grant that. So it has no purpose other than legal intimidation.
I'll confess I found his initial post looking a bit trollish, in the classical sense. I wasnt sure, and still am not completely sure, exactly what he is up to.
But if the tool is to give a complete view surely it should pay the same attention to regrowth as destruction.
Spotting deforestation quickly so that a proper investigation can be done is hard to argue against on its face. But selectively highlighting every instance of deforestation, while studiously ignoring all the regrowth events, does seem like bias. It can be confidently predicted that this will generate a steady stream of reports of negative events, and in the absence of a comparable stream of reports about positive events, human psychology allows us to predict the result will be many people believing that the forests are shrinking even if in fact they are growing on net.
This belief will be quite valuable to certain political interests, of course.
I dont care what language(s) and toolkit(s) you use on your backend. But when you get ready to send code to my web browser, send HTML.