Age is a relative thing. If we were living in the middle ages, I would be old. Today that's probably not the right word yet, but young is even further off. Does it matter?
Talk.origins has been around since... the 1980s maybe? At least the 1990s. It was the place for creationism-evolution debates, back when Usenet was the place for Internet discussion.
I know talk.origins, I just never wasted much time on the forums. There are some very good articles. I havent been to it recently but the last time I was there I would have only mildly criticised a handful of the articles - for occasional overstatements or mistatements of the sort only a fellow pedant would likely deem worthy of mention.
The forums? I have no idea. If it is as you say my response is a few levels up the tree already.
The point is that it's stupid to disbelieve a scientific theory on the basis of what terminology people who debate it use.
I'll concede that if you concede it's stupid to believe a scientific theory on the basis of a "poll" of scientists, however defined.
Oh, an armchair philosopher of science.
I'll grant I can see how that looked like a good shot to take but as a shot in the dark usually does, it's a swing and a miss. I have always insisted that abstractions must never be allowed to float, unconnected to practical/experimental application.
A physicist has an enviable field in many ways. It's generally possible to experiment properly, at least if you can pull funding. In many other areas grounding your abstractions is more difficult. Philosophy of science is the only discipline that gives one the necessary tools to determine when and how alternative approaches are valid.
Now you must be aware that climateology is more like, say, anthropology than physics in this regard. Proper experimentation just isnt possible to do in so many cases. (This doesnt mean that NO experimentation is possible, of course. Some of the micro-questions are amenable, but on the macro level, most of what we want to address simply isnt open to experiment.)
So, very often, instead of running an experiment, it is only possible to analyse historical data. And we must ask, is this scientifically valid? And the answer is a qualified yes. Yes, but. Yes, but only if X, Y, and Z.
Well in this case a critical qualification is that the raw data MUST be available for others to replicate the analysis. That's a necessary but not sufficient condition for this sort of analysis to have any credibility, any validity, at all. So when we look at the CRU, we find that they are making all these claims to scientific knowledge, but the raw data on which the claims rest? The details of the method of analysis? Those things are hidden, and more than that they have been deliberately hidden, even destroyed, to *prevent* others from being able to duplicate the analysis and question or corroborate it. When we find them discussing how to prevent anyone outside of their own circle of agreement from even getting a glimpse at the basic information needed to evaluate their work independently - it is not possible to conclude from this that their work is scientifically valid. Of course that doesnt prove that their conclusions are wrong either - but it does strip them of any legitimite claim to scientific validity, and indicates what they are doing is more like politics, or religion, than science.
Also, bear in mind I did say the fit between global-warmers and creationists is far from perfect. One huge difference I see. Creationism, as I mentioned before, is simply not a scientific theory. It isnt even theoretically possible to address it scientifically, it's so far off it's not even wrong.
On the other hand, anthropogenic climate change per se is clearly not in that category. It is a usable scientific theory, and in principle
Oh come on. Just Google "evolution denier", or search the talk.origins archives.
Seriously, never heard it, certainly never used it, would have a problem if I did. If you can find some hits for it I would suspect it came in as a contagion from the climatology debate.
That's nice, but irrelevant to my point.
I think it is relevant to your post, because you express a problem with *disbelief*. Disbelief is the foundation of scientific thinking, it's a core value, it's not a valid criticism.
If you think the people who debate global warming are more akin to creationists than scientists, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science (as well as the people who debate global warming).
A bare assertion on your part, with no evidence. And if you were in a position to know me, which you are not, you would know that that is simply not true. I cut my teeth on Kuhn, Popper, and Feyerebend.
Now I shall return your bare assertion with one of my own. If you dont see that the likes of "Mikes nature trick" is what we should expect from creationists, not scientists, then YOU, sir, have a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
That too, is a strawman. Scientific fact isn't established by vote. It is, however, entirely legitimate to bring up the relative balance of scientific opinion on the matter when discussing it with someone who isn't going to sit down and teach themselves climate science.
Your accusation of strawman is itself a strawman. I didnt say it wasnt legitimite to bring it up. I said it does not in any way constitute proof. And it doesnt.
There have been any cases where the vast majority of 'scientists' were unanimous - and dead wrong. This is normal and expected. So any headcount of 'scientists' justifies at the very most a very weak inference, nothing more. Science works on more solid grounds than that, or it doesnt exist.
Attaching a cost to pollution is a good idea. The implementation details are devilishly important though. The cost should go directly to those harmed - NOT into some state general fund where it can be spent politically. Yet that is the one thing that every scheme like this that has any chance of being implemented does NOT do. Instead, it will take the form of a tax, it will become government revenue, and this is not only not helpful it's worse than doing nothing at all. Once pollution becomes an income-generator for the state, it is in the states interest to ensure pollution continues, or even increases.
So the only way I can think of to do this right would be via civil suit, not via statute. Unfortunately in most, if not all, jurisdictions, statutory pollution control regimes have long ago immunised polluters from common law remedies like this.
And of course the other flaw in this proposal is the simple fact that CO2 IS NOT POLLUTION. Doh. But even if it were, see above.
1. Never heard that language used by anyone on my side in an evolution debate. Suspect that's a strawn man.
2. Don't 'believe' in evolution in any sense that involves faith. I understand it as the fundamental basis of modern biology, an important powerful scientific theory.
3. The problem with creationists is not any 'disbelief' in evolution (skepticism is fundamental to science) - it's their failure or refusal to understand science at all. Creationism is not a scientific theory, period. It cannot be tested, it cannot be disproven, it is religion, not science. Anyone skeptical of evolution that can put forth an alternative scientific theory is welcome to do so, and would receive a fair hearing with me. I have yet to see anyone do this, however.
4. The analogy is obviously imperfect, but it would be a better fit to compare the creationists and the global warmers together rather than apart. Scientific fact is never, ever established by a vote or a survey of opinions. Ever. Anyone who thinks it is has a fundamental misunderstanding of science, similar to that of the creationist.
Yeah I noticed after posting that is a later article. You can find the earlier one I meant to link easy enough with google.
Even this later, much more complimentary article links to the "why the dock still sucks", and it mentions quite a few of the problems. The areal density issues are NOT irrelvant now, not at all. High DPI screens do nothing about areal density issues, on that you are confused.
Colours take much longer to process than simple geometric shapes here, as Apples own research proved a few decades back. Slowing the user down with a confirmation screen afterwards is no substitute for making controls that are not so error-prone to begin with.
The dock and the apple menu bar are the biggest problems, so bad that he split them out from the main article. The NeXT Dock was a thing of beauty and the OSX version one of the ugliest designs ever made. It has improved somewhat, over many years, in response to a lot of criticism. It's still pretty darn ugly, even if time and natural interests (Tog is and will presumably always be an Apple man) eventually lead him to tone his criticisms down more than is warranted.
And yes it's true that with newer releases some criticisms were eventually listened to. Some, not all. Not anywhere near all.
You can get a shill 'standards group' to define anything you want as anything else, as long as there is a profit to be had. They dont own my brain, and they dont own yours either unless you let them. Marketing is a plague and abdicating your understanding of your language to those leeches differs from simply lobotomising yourself only in degree.
Broadband has a precise meaning, one that is clearly indicated by the word itself. Broad and band. NOT fast and band, notice. Broad and fast are entirely different concepts. Forget about computers for a second, look at water. You can have a broad river which is relatively slow, a narrow one that is very fast, etc.
Using 'broad' to mean 'fast' is ridiculous. Semantic hygiene is important, and that misuse is positively filthy. Poor semantic hygiene inevitably erodes the ability to think clearly and should be avoided for that reason alone. Broad and fast simply are not the same thing, and any usage that implies otherwise is therefore simply wrong. I dont care how many marketdroids you pay to chant otherwise.
And, btw, completely contrary to the implication in your first paragraph, I speak with non-technical people who misuse this term every single day and I have never been misunderstood. Quite the contrary, I get excellent marks for my ability to communicate clearly with extremely technically challenged people on a daily basis. When they say they have "broadband" I ask a question and find out what they actually meant, and restate it properly without making any fuss about it. This works great.
On the other hand I have seen colleagues who are not careful with their semantic hygiene regularly having misunderstandings because of it! When one side of a conversation doesnt know what they are talking about, the other side can compensate, but when NEITHER side can even think clearly about the subject... communication problems should be no surprise.
RIAA has been awarded millions in their pursuits against individuals who gave some music away. Then we have a company that is blatantly abusing copyright laws and makes tens of billions an year, and they get punished $150,000!
Someone should look into US court system.
I was actually thinking the same thing. And you're at -1 flamebait at the moment for speaking it. Oh well I can burn some karma if need be, because this needs to be said.
Not that there is anything wrong with what google did here that I can see, that's not the point at all, but dont you see the double-standard here? When the RIAA sues a private individual for alleged non-commercial copyright infringement, they throw the book at them. When google gets caught here, and I would argue that the 9 lines are de minimis and probably functionally determined and the court is wrong on this, BUT, it appears that is not what the court has decided, so let's go with that. Google infringed copyright, commercially no less! and... the judge is (quite rightly) informing oracle that despite this determination the damage is minimal and therefore their recovery is likely to be a LOT less than their lawyer fees.
Great. But why doesnt it work that way when the RIAA sues somebodies grandmother over a Britney Spears recording? Surely that is an even more minor issue than what google is stuck with here, yet the punishment would likely be far greater. That's all I am saying.
Back a few years ago when OSX was new, Tog posted a good, though brief and certainly incomplete, article about the regressions from OS9. You can read that here: http://www.asktog.com/columns/061PantherReview.html
I dont know off the top of my head of a good comparison of the same type versus NeXT but one could certainly be done and it would look no better in comparison. The NeXT dock or the old Apple menu were both excellent designs, the OSX version of each is an obvious regression, confusing, inconsistent... even the windows widget layouts degraded badly. Classic Mac OS has three widgets, two on the right that have non-destructive functions, and a single button on the left with the destructive (close) function far away from the nondestructive controls. NeXT refined that a bit, with only two buttons, on opposite sides of the window, still keeping the destructive function far from the other one (and adding some 'hidden' functions for power users in a convenient spot where they wouldnt interfere with those who don use such things.) In both cases, the buttons themselves are also distinguished visually with simple, contrasting geometric shapes.
But on OSX, you have 2 nondestructive and one destructive control bunched together in one tight group without separation, "glowing gumballs" without distinctive shapes. It's unquestionably a massive regression, whether you measure from OS 9 or from NeXT.
Now that brings back memories. Objective Pascal with Borland libraries. I hated high level languages back in those days, until I met Delphi.
Borland is long gone, it would be cool if there were a free software clone out there to use though. It might even inspire me to try programming again sometime.
Re:NeXTStep the grand-daddy of all that is now OS
on
Objective-C Comes of Age
·
· Score: 3, Informative
OSX is NOT the NeXT OS with the Mac GUI. That would be much better.
In fact it can be claimed to be a lineal descendent of NeXT, but it's been greatly modified, and the new UI is a regression from either the Mac or NeXT GUIs.
Also iOS - Obj C is obviously referring to the proprietary dialect of ObjC used in Apple mobie devices. (Nothing to do with Cisco iOS either, why cant they think of their own names for this stuff?) There are other dialects, notably the GCC version, which is much more widely applicable.
That's dumb. It's eroding *science* - turning science into religion. If the only problem you see with that is the erosion of public trust then there is something wrong on your end.
That said, the observations in the article are spot-on, and it's good to see others finally noticing this. And as the article notes, it's not limited to medical research. Not by any means. Climateology in recent years has been another area where this problem is quite severe.
Not sure exactly *when* but the phrase is pretty obvious and transparent to anyone that's ever made bread and it seems certain it was originally coined with that in mind, with a quite narrow and specific meaning. Those who havent made bread tend to use it simply as a synonym for 'take a dump' (as the guy you were replying to seems to have done,) but when used properly it's hard to think of any other phrase to use that would be so apt.
Robert Anton Wilson said it many years ago, and ever since I read it, I have been watching it become more and more obvious and uncontrovertible every year since.
"The number one cause of national insecurity is national security."
The insanity of the school systems is quite intentional, and the damage it does to any children whose parents cant or wont protect them from it can be horrific.
When I was in school, I carried a knife every day, and so did every other kid. If you showed up with one that was considerably out of the 'pocket knife' classification they might get concerned enough to ask to hold onto it till the end of the day.
When my father was in school, it was typical for kids in this area (rural, obviously) to come to school with a.22 rifle. Couldnt carry that to classes, of course, but you could have it stashed during the day, pick it back up on the way out, and use it to score some supper on the way back home. When boys got in a fight they would take them to the gym, strap gloves on, and let em go at it till they got it out of their system. Every kid around here had a firearm, and they knew that it was for hunting food, not settling scores. There were no school shootings. THAT was America, and somewhere along the way we have lost ourselves.
Now? Schools are prisons. This is on purpose. What better way to create a compliant controllable population than to grab them young and stick them in a prison where they will learn to obey authority without question and little else? John Taylor Gatto's six-lesson schoolteacher laid out the basics of this in plain terms years ago, and everything that has happened since has just shown how right he was, and quite possibly how *understated* his indictment really was.
While it is true this judge seems to understand the technology a little better than most, that really isnt saying much. He definitely doesnt understand the meaning of the word "download." Most non-technical people dont, I wince every time I hear someone using it as a synonym for "install" and that happens pretty frequently, but in this case the judge seems to be using it as a synonym for "save" instead. Certainly the files couldnt have been in the cache without being downloaded first...
It's always very interesting watching lawyers try to deal with technology. Precise wording is so very important in law - but lawyers, in particular the older ones that you find on the bench but lawyers in general in my experience, dont tend to come anywhere near understanding technological issues well enough to avoid sloppy and just plain incorrect wording. Given how important precise wording is in law... this cant be a good thing.
That clearly isnt true. If it were, it would be impossible to prosecute the crime. The judge, jury, and both sides lawyers HAVE to view the material if there is to be a trial.
I'd call em back with my lawyer on the line. Or a friend who can do a passable imitation of a lawyer, at least. They wouldnt know the difference.
You're dealing with low-level drones that have to just follow the scripts they are given. Escalate it and force the issue. Companies setup ridiculous policies like this because they know it will cost the customer a lot more to get legal relief than it would be worth, and count on that. The moment they believe they are dealing with a customer who is stubborn and irrational enough to sue them anyway that attitude should do a 180.
If I am not misunderstanding, he basically just laid down a fine line that implies that using anti-filter technology IS ok, as long as you arent doing that specifically in order to commit another crime. A pretty reasonable line to parse - and one that would give anyone caught in simple possession of such tools a nice legal out. "I only got that so I could read the Supreme Leaders statement! "
Because what he defines as a left-wing authoritarian mindset is, in fact, simply an authoritarian mindset. If the poster considers himself 'right-wing' and most of the authoritarianism he encounters seems to be 'left-wing' then he will naturally start to equate left wing with authoritarianism, even if he consciously knows better.
Besides, what passes for 'right-wing' in the UK today is still quite left of centre by US standards.
Where mine has always been. Even Windows makes that easy - grab the taskbar, drag it widdershins a quarter circle and you have the taskbar vertical on the left hand side like it should be.
Strangely enough, Gnome decided at some point in the distant past when I was still occasionally trying to use it to make that impossible. One of the several reasons I have had no desire to even look at it for ages. A free software desktop that is actually WORSE than Windows? No thank you. Windowmaker, on the other hand, rocks.
Slashdot Mirror
All programs are math. If it isnt math you cannot run it on a COMPUTER. Back to school, shill.
Age is a relative thing. If we were living in the middle ages, I would be old. Today that's probably not the right word yet, but young is even further off. Does it matter?
I know talk.origins, I just never wasted much time on the forums. There are some very good articles. I havent been to it recently but the last time I was there I would have only mildly criticised a handful of the articles - for occasional overstatements or mistatements of the sort only a fellow pedant would likely deem worthy of mention.
The forums? I have no idea. If it is as you say my response is a few levels up the tree already.
I'll concede that if you concede it's stupid to believe a scientific theory on the basis of a "poll" of scientists, however defined.
I'll grant I can see how that looked like a good shot to take but as a shot in the dark usually does, it's a swing and a miss. I have always insisted that abstractions must never be allowed to float, unconnected to practical/experimental application.
A physicist has an enviable field in many ways. It's generally possible to experiment properly, at least if you can pull funding. In many other areas grounding your abstractions is more difficult. Philosophy of science is the only discipline that gives one the necessary tools to determine when and how alternative approaches are valid.
Now you must be aware that climateology is more like, say, anthropology than physics in this regard. Proper experimentation just isnt possible to do in so many cases. (This doesnt mean that NO experimentation is possible, of course. Some of the micro-questions are amenable, but on the macro level, most of what we want to address simply isnt open to experiment.)
So, very often, instead of running an experiment, it is only possible to analyse historical data. And we must ask, is this scientifically valid? And the answer is a qualified yes. Yes, but. Yes, but only if X, Y, and Z.
Well in this case a critical qualification is that the raw data MUST be available for others to replicate the analysis. That's a necessary but not sufficient condition for this sort of analysis to have any credibility, any validity, at all. So when we look at the CRU, we find that they are making all these claims to scientific knowledge, but the raw data on which the claims rest? The details of the method of analysis? Those things are hidden, and more than that they have been deliberately hidden, even destroyed, to *prevent* others from being able to duplicate the analysis and question or corroborate it. When we find them discussing how to prevent anyone outside of their own circle of agreement from even getting a glimpse at the basic information needed to evaluate their work independently - it is not possible to conclude from this that their work is scientifically valid. Of course that doesnt prove that their conclusions are wrong either - but it does strip them of any legitimite claim to scientific validity, and indicates what they are doing is more like politics, or religion, than science.
Also, bear in mind I did say the fit between global-warmers and creationists is far from perfect. One huge difference I see. Creationism, as I mentioned before, is simply not a scientific theory. It isnt even theoretically possible to address it scientifically, it's so far off it's not even wrong.
On the other hand, anthropogenic climate change per se is clearly not in that category. It is a usable scientific theory, and in principle
Seriously, never heard it, certainly never used it, would have a problem if I did. If you can find some hits for it I would suspect it came in as a contagion from the climatology debate.
I think it is relevant to your post, because you express a problem with *disbelief*. Disbelief is the foundation of scientific thinking, it's a core value, it's not a valid criticism.
A bare assertion on your part, with no evidence. And if you were in a position to know me, which you are not, you would know that that is simply not true. I cut my teeth on Kuhn, Popper, and Feyerebend.
Now I shall return your bare assertion with one of my own. If you dont see that the likes of "Mikes nature trick" is what we should expect from creationists, not scientists, then YOU, sir, have a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Your accusation of strawman is itself a strawman. I didnt say it wasnt legitimite to bring it up. I said it does not in any way constitute proof. And it doesnt.
There have been any cases where the vast majority of 'scientists' were unanimous - and dead wrong. This is normal and expected. So any headcount of 'scientists' justifies at the very most a very weak inference, nothing more. Science works on more solid grounds than that, or it doesnt exist.
Attaching a cost to pollution is a good idea. The implementation details are devilishly important though. The cost should go directly to those harmed - NOT into some state general fund where it can be spent politically. Yet that is the one thing that every scheme like this that has any chance of being implemented does NOT do. Instead, it will take the form of a tax, it will become government revenue, and this is not only not helpful it's worse than doing nothing at all. Once pollution becomes an income-generator for the state, it is in the states interest to ensure pollution continues, or even increases.
So the only way I can think of to do this right would be via civil suit, not via statute. Unfortunately in most, if not all, jurisdictions, statutory pollution control regimes have long ago immunised polluters from common law remedies like this.
And of course the other flaw in this proposal is the simple fact that CO2 IS NOT POLLUTION. Doh. But even if it were, see above.
I cant speak for the OP but:
1. Never heard that language used by anyone on my side in an evolution debate. Suspect that's a strawn man.
2. Don't 'believe' in evolution in any sense that involves faith. I understand it as the fundamental basis of modern biology, an important powerful scientific theory.
3. The problem with creationists is not any 'disbelief' in evolution (skepticism is fundamental to science) - it's their failure or refusal to understand science at all. Creationism is not a scientific theory, period. It cannot be tested, it cannot be disproven, it is religion, not science. Anyone skeptical of evolution that can put forth an alternative scientific theory is welcome to do so, and would receive a fair hearing with me. I have yet to see anyone do this, however.
4. The analogy is obviously imperfect, but it would be a better fit to compare the creationists and the global warmers together rather than apart. Scientific fact is never, ever established by a vote or a survey of opinions. Ever. Anyone who thinks it is has a fundamental misunderstanding of science, similar to that of the creationist.
Yeah I noticed after posting that is a later article. You can find the earlier one I meant to link easy enough with google.
Even this later, much more complimentary article links to the "why the dock still sucks", and it mentions quite a few of the problems. The areal density issues are NOT irrelvant now, not at all. High DPI screens do nothing about areal density issues, on that you are confused.
Colours take much longer to process than simple geometric shapes here, as Apples own research proved a few decades back. Slowing the user down with a confirmation screen afterwards is no substitute for making controls that are not so error-prone to begin with.
The dock and the apple menu bar are the biggest problems, so bad that he split them out from the main article. The NeXT Dock was a thing of beauty and the OSX version one of the ugliest designs ever made. It has improved somewhat, over many years, in response to a lot of criticism. It's still pretty darn ugly, even if time and natural interests (Tog is and will presumably always be an Apple man) eventually lead him to tone his criticisms down more than is warranted.
And yes it's true that with newer releases some criticisms were eventually listened to. Some, not all. Not anywhere near all.
You can get a shill 'standards group' to define anything you want as anything else, as long as there is a profit to be had. They dont own my brain, and they dont own yours either unless you let them. Marketing is a plague and abdicating your understanding of your language to those leeches differs from simply lobotomising yourself only in degree.
Broadband has a precise meaning, one that is clearly indicated by the word itself. Broad and band. NOT fast and band, notice. Broad and fast are entirely different concepts. Forget about computers for a second, look at water. You can have a broad river which is relatively slow, a narrow one that is very fast, etc.
Using 'broad' to mean 'fast' is ridiculous. Semantic hygiene is important, and that misuse is positively filthy. Poor semantic hygiene inevitably erodes the ability to think clearly and should be avoided for that reason alone. Broad and fast simply are not the same thing, and any usage that implies otherwise is therefore simply wrong. I dont care how many marketdroids you pay to chant otherwise.
And, btw, completely contrary to the implication in your first paragraph, I speak with non-technical people who misuse this term every single day and I have never been misunderstood. Quite the contrary, I get excellent marks for my ability to communicate clearly with extremely technically challenged people on a daily basis. When they say they have "broadband" I ask a question and find out what they actually meant, and restate it properly without making any fuss about it. This works great.
On the other hand I have seen colleagues who are not careful with their semantic hygiene regularly having misunderstandings because of it! When one side of a conversation doesnt know what they are talking about, the other side can compensate, but when NEITHER side can even think clearly about the subject... communication problems should be no surprise.
I was actually thinking the same thing. And you're at -1 flamebait at the moment for speaking it. Oh well I can burn some karma if need be, because this needs to be said.
Not that there is anything wrong with what google did here that I can see, that's not the point at all, but dont you see the double-standard here? When the RIAA sues a private individual for alleged non-commercial copyright infringement, they throw the book at them. When google gets caught here, and I would argue that the 9 lines are de minimis and probably functionally determined and the court is wrong on this, BUT, it appears that is not what the court has decided, so let's go with that. Google infringed copyright, commercially no less! and... the judge is (quite rightly) informing oracle that despite this determination the damage is minimal and therefore their recovery is likely to be a LOT less than their lawyer fees.
Great. But why doesnt it work that way when the RIAA sues somebodies grandmother over a Britney Spears recording? Surely that is an even more minor issue than what google is stuck with here, yet the punishment would likely be far greater. That's all I am saying.
A common *misuse* of the term, as your own link makes adequately clear.
Precise language isnt free, it has to be defended, and it is worth defending.
Absolutely!
Back a few years ago when OSX was new, Tog posted a good, though brief and certainly incomplete, article about the regressions from OS9. You can read that here: http://www.asktog.com/columns/061PantherReview.html
I dont know off the top of my head of a good comparison of the same type versus NeXT but one could certainly be done and it would look no better in comparison. The NeXT dock or the old Apple menu were both excellent designs, the OSX version of each is an obvious regression, confusing, inconsistent... even the windows widget layouts degraded badly. Classic Mac OS has three widgets, two on the right that have non-destructive functions, and a single button on the left with the destructive (close) function far away from the nondestructive controls. NeXT refined that a bit, with only two buttons, on opposite sides of the window, still keeping the destructive function far from the other one (and adding some 'hidden' functions for power users in a convenient spot where they wouldnt interfere with those who don use such things.) In both cases, the buttons themselves are also distinguished visually with simple, contrasting geometric shapes.
But on OSX, you have 2 nondestructive and one destructive control bunched together in one tight group without separation, "glowing gumballs" without distinctive shapes. It's unquestionably a massive regression, whether you measure from OS 9 or from NeXT.
Sounds like a hardware problem to me. I advise getting a professional neurologist on the job ASAP.
MMM Delphi.
Now that brings back memories. Objective Pascal with Borland libraries. I hated high level languages back in those days, until I met Delphi.
Borland is long gone, it would be cool if there were a free software clone out there to use though. It might even inspire me to try programming again sometime.
OSX is NOT the NeXT OS with the Mac GUI. That would be much better.
In fact it can be claimed to be a lineal descendent of NeXT, but it's been greatly modified, and the new UI is a regression from either the Mac or NeXT GUIs.
Also iOS - Obj C is obviously referring to the proprietary dialect of ObjC used in Apple mobie devices. (Nothing to do with Cisco iOS either, why cant they think of their own names for this stuff?) There are other dialects, notably the GCC version, which is much more widely applicable.
Lookup John Taylor Gatto. Read the six-lesson schoolteacher. Give it a little time to sink in. Then rethink your statement, please.
Global warming: Fraud with a leftist political agenda
Creationism: Fraud with a rightest political agenda
FTFY
That's dumb. It's eroding *science* - turning science into religion. If the only problem you see with that is the erosion of public trust then there is something wrong on your end.
That said, the observations in the article are spot-on, and it's good to see others finally noticing this. And as the article notes, it's not limited to medical research. Not by any means. Climateology in recent years has been another area where this problem is quite severe.
Not sure exactly *when* but the phrase is pretty obvious and transparent to anyone that's ever made bread and it seems certain it was originally coined with that in mind, with a quite narrow and specific meaning. Those who havent made bread tend to use it simply as a synonym for 'take a dump' (as the guy you were replying to seems to have done,) but when used properly it's hard to think of any other phrase to use that would be so apt.
Robert Anton Wilson said it many years ago, and ever since I read it, I have been watching it become more and more obvious and uncontrovertible every year since.
"The number one cause of national insecurity is national security."
The insanity of the school systems is quite intentional, and the damage it does to any children whose parents cant or wont protect them from it can be horrific.
When I was in school, I carried a knife every day, and so did every other kid. If you showed up with one that was considerably out of the 'pocket knife' classification they might get concerned enough to ask to hold onto it till the end of the day.
When my father was in school, it was typical for kids in this area (rural, obviously) to come to school with a .22 rifle. Couldnt carry that to classes, of course, but you could have it stashed during the day, pick it back up on the way out, and use it to score some supper on the way back home. When boys got in a fight they would take them to the gym, strap gloves on, and let em go at it till they got it out of their system. Every kid around here had a firearm, and they knew that it was for hunting food, not settling scores. There were no school shootings. THAT was America, and somewhere along the way we have lost ourselves.
Now? Schools are prisons. This is on purpose. What better way to create a compliant controllable population than to grab them young and stick them in a prison where they will learn to obey authority without question and little else? John Taylor Gatto's six-lesson schoolteacher laid out the basics of this in plain terms years ago, and everything that has happened since has just shown how right he was, and quite possibly how *understated* his indictment really was.
While it is true this judge seems to understand the technology a little better than most, that really isnt saying much. He definitely doesnt understand the meaning of the word "download." Most non-technical people dont, I wince every time I hear someone using it as a synonym for "install" and that happens pretty frequently, but in this case the judge seems to be using it as a synonym for "save" instead. Certainly the files couldnt have been in the cache without being downloaded first...
It's always very interesting watching lawyers try to deal with technology. Precise wording is so very important in law - but lawyers, in particular the older ones that you find on the bench but lawyers in general in my experience, dont tend to come anywhere near understanding technological issues well enough to avoid sloppy and just plain incorrect wording. Given how important precise wording is in law... this cant be a good thing.
That clearly isnt true. If it were, it would be impossible to prosecute the crime. The judge, jury, and both sides lawyers HAVE to view the material if there is to be a trial.
I'd call em back with my lawyer on the line. Or a friend who can do a passable imitation of a lawyer, at least. They wouldnt know the difference.
You're dealing with low-level drones that have to just follow the scripts they are given. Escalate it and force the issue. Companies setup ridiculous policies like this because they know it will cost the customer a lot more to get legal relief than it would be worth, and count on that. The moment they believe they are dealing with a customer who is stubborn and irrational enough to sue them anyway that attitude should do a 180.
If I am not misunderstanding, he basically just laid down a fine line that implies that using anti-filter technology IS ok, as long as you arent doing that specifically in order to commit another crime. A pretty reasonable line to parse - and one that would give anyone caught in simple possession of such tools a nice legal out. "I only got that so I could read the Supreme Leaders statement! "
Because what he defines as a left-wing authoritarian mindset is, in fact, simply an authoritarian mindset. If the poster considers himself 'right-wing' and most of the authoritarianism he encounters seems to be 'left-wing' then he will naturally start to equate left wing with authoritarianism, even if he consciously knows better.
Besides, what passes for 'right-wing' in the UK today is still quite left of centre by US standards.
Where mine has always been. Even Windows makes that easy - grab the taskbar, drag it widdershins a quarter circle and you have the taskbar vertical on the left hand side like it should be.
Strangely enough, Gnome decided at some point in the distant past when I was still occasionally trying to use it to make that impossible. One of the several reasons I have had no desire to even look at it for ages. A free software desktop that is actually WORSE than Windows? No thank you. Windowmaker, on the other hand, rocks.