You know, if the US had national health care (aka national health insurance) like Canada and the rest of the Free World, your companies wouldn't bother with physicals and drug screenings. I've worked for two banks, one multinational, and a medium-sized business up here and neither had anything resembling a health check of any sort.
Because HTML5 is intended to be backwards-compatible with HTML4 browsers, publishing the document in HTML5 is a way of sanity-checking that. The doctype is intentionally abbreviated -- it's long enough to trigger standards-mode (rather than quirks-mode) in all browsers.
- Get rid of the light grey borders. They don't hug the frame, they don't hug the scrollable filebrowser, and they cause of a lot of visual noise. - Get rid of the fugly Lives logo. If you think there needs to be more no-op clickable space, replace it with empty background -- empty borderless background. It distracts from the task at hand.
Once you've done those two things, the app will stop being an ugly monster. Whether it will become beautiful is another question.
I met my girlfriend of eight months on OkCupid. The experience there is excellent.
I ended up on OKC in a convoluted way. One of my male acquantainces was using it successfully, so when a female friend of mine complained about the crappiness of LavaLife, I suggested she try OKC. She raved about: - The genuine, interesting, fun people on it who were looking for more than just a shag. - The fact that the profile is structured just enough to make it easy to write paragraphs about oneself. I find that a person's writing says a lot about them. - The excellence of the matching algorithm, which is based on oodles of user-submitted questions. There's no minimum number to answer, and they are fun to do. - The way the system really, really encourages and rewards honesty -- honest answers get you better matches. You get matched on stuff you are repressed about too. - The bit where it's FREE
I am sociable but not very gregarious -- I don't meet new people often. Majoring in Computer Science gets you surrounded by fellow introverts. OKC sounded very interesting. I decided to give it a try, quickly filled out a profile, and did a bunch of questions. Once the stats were crunched, I messaged some of the higher matches. A bunch responded.:D
In the end, I talked with about ten and met about five people in the span of two months. The people were great, and my girlfriend -- whose picture on OKC was not very flattering -- is absolutely awesome. We connect on pretty much every level.
Some advice: - Do lots of the "Improve Matches" questions. It's easy and engrossing once you get started. As you do more, the maximum match score asymptotically approaches 100%. - When messaging someone, read their profile and ask about their interests. People like to talk about what they are into. Don't rely on them thinking of a subject.
I met my girlfriend of eight months on OkCupid. The experience there is excellent.
I ended up on OKC in a convoluted way. One of my male acquantainces was using it successfully, so when a female friend of mine complained about the crappiness of LavaLife, I suggested she try OKC. She raved about:
- The genuine, interesting, fun people on it who were looking for more than just a shag.
- The fact that the profile is structured just enough to make it easy to write paragraphs about oneself. I find that a person's writing says a lot about them.
- The excellence of the matching algorithm, which is based on oodles of user-submitted questions. There's no minimum number to answer, and they are fun to do.
- The way the system really, really encourages and rewards honesty -- honest answers get you better matches. You get matched on stuff you are repressed about too.
- The bit where it's FREE
I am sociable but not very gregarious -- I don't meet new people often. Majoring in Computer Science gets you surrounded by fellow introverts. OKC sounded very interesting. I decided to give it a try, quickly filled out a profile, and did a bunch of questions. Once the stats were crunched, I messaged some of the higher matches. A bunch responded.:D
In the end, I talked with about ten and met about five people in the span of two months. The people were great, and my girlfriend -- whose picture on OKC was not very flattering -- is absolutely awesome. We connect on pretty much every level.
Some advice:
- Do lots of the "Improve Matches" questions. It's easy and engrossing once you get started. As you do more, the maximum match score asymptotically approaches 100%.
- When messaging someone, read their profile and ask about their interests. People like to talk about what they are into. Don't rely on them thinking of a subject.
No, the article means IBM, which develops the DB2, Informix, Rational, WebSphere, and Lotus ranges of software products. Lenovo is the new manufacturer of Thinkpads. They are not the new IBM.
A shitty recording contract is arguably better than no recording contract. Signing with RIAA corporations is the only reliable way for artists to gain national/international distribution of their CDs into stores. As long as RIAA corporations exist, the business model for a record company that does not shaft artists is not compelling. As long as RIAA corporations keep signing new artists and copyright legislation remains in its current form, RIAA corporations will exist. The overall business trend is towards more corporate consolidation and more screwing of the creative types for pennies, not less.
There's a difference between trusting the individual and thinking that the individual is an omniscient, all-wise, perfectly rational god. I trust the individual to have fun in their bedroom. I do not trust the individual to know what needs there are, or what other people are already doing, or to be consistent in their inclinations for charity. For some things, you need a centralized organization. And when people join together in an organization to do something, they are replicating the structure of an organization that their ancestors joined together to form -- their government.
So, even though we have better means of verifying, ascertaining, and finding out new information, we should not act on that because those who came before us did not have that information to act on? I think that, with better tools, it is reasonable to demand a higher standard of quality.
I think it plays them with the right codecs installed and the file extension manually set to open with WinAmp, but I am not at home right now and cannot check.
I stopped buying iTunes music after upgrading to version 6 and finding out that jHymn no longer worked. If I can't play it in Winamp, I am not going to buy it. Once this is incorporated into jHymn, I will be able to give Apple money again. Thank you.
And, no, I can't take my money to eMusic or AllOfMp3. iTMS has artists that those two do not (and vice versa). Copyright is a temporary monopoly. If a label doesn't have a deal with a store, I can't get its stuff.
People are mentioning Civilization as an example of a high brow game, but it is mere beer-and-pretzel Gilbert and Sullivan compared to more intellectual games such as Imperialism (1997) -- an abstract game of 19th century strategy -- Europa Universalis II (2001) -- a wonderful game of 15th-19th century history with ~200 active countries and realistic diplomacy -- Crusader Kings (2004) -- a medieval dynasty simulator with inbreeding, inheritance, and assassination on a grand strategic map -- Victoria (2003) -- a seriously hardcore game of economy and realpolitik -- and Hearts of Iron II (2006) -- a WW2 war game of strategic envelopment, pincer movements, and blitzkrieg.
There are many other fine games, but these are the ones I think of when I think of sophisticated gameplay and claim to highbrow status.
The talking point of CSS is that you separate the semantics/tag structure of the content from the presentation of the content. HTML tables should only be used for table-like data, not to separate your logo from your navbar. display:table; in CSS, OTOH, is just a way to achieve grid-like formatting. Doesn't work in IE6, though.
Im always shoving down my students throats the importance of writing well, doing presentations and listening, she said. They just think Im being weird.
Composition, oratory, and analysis are traditional components of a humanities education. That's what English/History/Anthro minors are for -- to teach you to think and express yourself -- and the fact that our society has chosen to shift wholesale to some airheaded third-rate imitation of that is preposterous.
Actually, the idea of change in species gained a foothold at least a century before Darwin. What Darwin provided was a reason for such -- the conflict between population growth and the environment. That conflict results in precisely the same pressure on breeding stock that human farmers and pet owners have been artificially imposing on their animals for the last few thousand years to spectacular result.
He was preceeded by a century or more of geologists who had started systematically studying strata and noticed that the Earth was at least several million years old. They also noticed lots of funny fossils in their rocks. People such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and others had proposed systematic change in species, but they didn't have a reason for such.
Darwin didn't just jump up and scream "Eureka". He noticed the variation in Galapagos Finches and went over his notes from the voyage. He then spent the next ten years studying variation and diversity of barnacles, thus becoming a very respected naturalist. He only started writing the Origin of Species when Alfred Russell Wallace sent Darwin a paper for proofing that described the same sort of evolutionary pressure that Darwin had been pondering for the last decade.
It's important that we are not just talking about humans -- Africa's fossil record for the last 25 million years is crap. There is a much richer wealth of fossils on other continents and for different eras, and 19th century geologists had already started cataloguing such by the time Darwin was choosing between joining the clergy or first sailing around the world.
"Missing link"? That's not scientific terminology, and it hasn't been scientific terminology for many, many decades now. The only ones talking about "missing links" these days are creationists who are under the impression that Darwin's Origin of Species is the latest and the greatest on the science front.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Reduce cache size to something reasonable, like 10MB :D
2. Reduce history size to something reasonable, like 500
3. Switch to Opera
You know, if the US had national health care (aka national health insurance) like Canada and the rest of the Free World, your companies wouldn't bother with physicals and drug screenings. I've worked for two banks, one multinational, and a medium-sized business up here and neither had anything resembling a health check of any sort.
LeoPetr, almost universally revered by Thai Slashdotters, makes an incisive and witty comment on the situation.
Because HTML5 is intended to be backwards-compatible with HTML4 browsers, publishing the document in HTML5 is a way of sanity-checking that. The doctype is intentionally abbreviated -- it's long enough to trigger standards-mode (rather than quirks-mode) in all browsers.
Instead of punching them through, why not... use pens to put checkmarks in boxes? That's the way Elections Canada does it, anyways.
For that matter, the Official Python Tutorial is doubleplusgreat. It's both well written and comprehensive.
- Get rid of the light grey borders. They don't hug the frame, they don't hug the scrollable filebrowser, and they cause of a lot of visual noise.
- Get rid of the fugly Lives logo. If you think there needs to be more no-op clickable space, replace it with empty background -- empty borderless background. It distracts from the task at hand.
Once you've done those two things, the app will stop being an ugly monster. Whether it will become beautiful is another question.
That's "Interstellar Incest", you Insensitive Clod!
1. "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend." - Mao Zedong
2. Critics come out of the woodwork and start publishing their opinions.
3. A year or two later, there is a crackdown and critics disappear.
A bit of a duh at this point, methinks.
...it's Ctrl+Z (Ctrl+Alt+Z always works when Ctrl+Z undoes typing).
I met my girlfriend of eight months on OkCupid. The experience there is excellent.
I ended up on OKC in a convoluted way. One of my male acquantainces was using it successfully, so when a female friend of mine complained about the crappiness of LavaLife, I suggested she try OKC. She raved about:
- The genuine, interesting, fun people on it who were looking for more than just a shag.
- The fact that the profile is structured just enough to make it easy to write paragraphs about oneself. I find that a person's writing says a lot about them.
- The excellence of the matching algorithm, which is based on oodles of user-submitted questions. There's no minimum number to answer, and they are fun to do.
- The way the system really, really encourages and rewards honesty -- honest answers get you better matches. You get matched on stuff you are repressed about too.
- The bit where it's FREE
I am sociable but not very gregarious -- I don't meet new people often. Majoring in Computer Science gets you surrounded by fellow introverts. OKC sounded very interesting. I decided to give it a try, quickly filled out a profile, and did a bunch of questions. Once the stats were crunched, I messaged some of the higher matches. A bunch responded.:D
In the end, I talked with about ten and met about five people in the span of two months. The people were great, and my girlfriend -- whose picture on OKC was not very flattering -- is absolutely awesome. We connect on pretty much every level.
Some advice:
- Do lots of the "Improve Matches" questions. It's easy and engrossing once you get started. As you do more, the maximum match score asymptotically approaches 100%.
- When messaging someone, read their profile and ask about their interests. People like to talk about what they are into. Don't rely on them thinking of a subject.
I met my girlfriend of eight months on OkCupid. The experience there is excellent. I ended up on OKC in a convoluted way. One of my male acquantainces was using it successfully, so when a female friend of mine complained about the crappiness of LavaLife, I suggested she try OKC. She raved about: - The genuine, interesting, fun people on it who were looking for more than just a shag. - The fact that the profile is structured just enough to make it easy to write paragraphs about oneself. I find that a person's writing says a lot about them. - The excellence of the matching algorithm, which is based on oodles of user-submitted questions. There's no minimum number to answer, and they are fun to do. - The way the system really, really encourages and rewards honesty -- honest answers get you better matches. You get matched on stuff you are repressed about too. - The bit where it's FREE I am sociable but not very gregarious -- I don't meet new people often. Majoring in Computer Science gets you surrounded by fellow introverts. OKC sounded very interesting. I decided to give it a try, quickly filled out a profile, and did a bunch of questions. Once the stats were crunched, I messaged some of the higher matches. A bunch responded.:D In the end, I talked with about ten and met about five people in the span of two months. The people were great, and my girlfriend -- whose picture on OKC was not very flattering -- is absolutely awesome. We connect on pretty much every level. Some advice: - Do lots of the "Improve Matches" questions. It's easy and engrossing once you get started. As you do more, the maximum match score asymptotically approaches 100%. - When messaging someone, read their profile and ask about their interests. People like to talk about what they are into. Don't rely on them thinking of a subject.
Perhaps WGA sends less data to Microsoft than this tool. Users value their anonymity.
No, the article means IBM, which develops the DB2, Informix, Rational, WebSphere, and Lotus ranges of software products. Lenovo is the new manufacturer of Thinkpads. They are not the new IBM.
A shitty recording contract is arguably better than no recording contract. Signing with RIAA corporations is the only reliable way for artists to gain national/international distribution of their CDs into stores. As long as RIAA corporations exist, the business model for a record company that does not shaft artists is not compelling. As long as RIAA corporations keep signing new artists and copyright legislation remains in its current form, RIAA corporations will exist. The overall business trend is towards more corporate consolidation and more screwing of the creative types for pennies, not less.
There's a difference between trusting the individual and thinking that the individual is an omniscient, all-wise, perfectly rational god. I trust the individual to have fun in their bedroom. I do not trust the individual to know what needs there are, or what other people are already doing, or to be consistent in their inclinations for charity. For some things, you need a centralized organization. And when people join together in an organization to do something, they are replicating the structure of an organization that their ancestors joined together to form -- their government.
So, even though we have better means of verifying, ascertaining, and finding out new information, we should not act on that because those who came before us did not have that information to act on? I think that, with better tools, it is reasonable to demand a higher standard of quality.
I think it plays them with the right codecs installed and the file extension manually set to open with WinAmp, but I am not at home right now and cannot check.
I stopped buying iTunes music after upgrading to version 6 and finding out that jHymn no longer worked. If I can't play it in Winamp, I am not going to buy it. Once this is incorporated into jHymn, I will be able to give Apple money again. Thank you.
And, no, I can't take my money to eMusic or AllOfMp3. iTMS has artists that those two do not (and vice versa). Copyright is a temporary monopoly. If a label doesn't have a deal with a store, I can't get its stuff.
In 1994, we were blessed with a new Jules Vernes novel.:P
People are mentioning Civilization as an example of a high brow game, but it is mere beer-and-pretzel Gilbert and Sullivan compared to more intellectual games such as Imperialism (1997) -- an abstract game of 19th century strategy -- Europa Universalis II (2001) -- a wonderful game of 15th-19th century history with ~200 active countries and realistic diplomacy -- Crusader Kings (2004) -- a medieval dynasty simulator with inbreeding, inheritance, and assassination on a grand strategic map -- Victoria (2003) -- a seriously hardcore game of economy and realpolitik -- and Hearts of Iron II (2006) -- a WW2 war game of strategic envelopment, pincer movements, and blitzkrieg.
There are many other fine games, but these are the ones I think of when I think of sophisticated gameplay and claim to highbrow status.
The talking point of CSS is that you separate the semantics/tag structure of the content from the presentation of the content. HTML tables should only be used for table-like data, not to separate your logo from your navbar. display:table; in CSS, OTOH, is just a way to achieve grid-like formatting. Doesn't work in IE6, though.
Im always shoving down my students throats the importance of writing well, doing presentations and listening, she said. They just think Im being weird.
Composition, oratory, and analysis are traditional components of a humanities education. That's what English/History/Anthro minors are for -- to teach you to think and express yourself -- and the fact that our society has chosen to shift wholesale to some airheaded third-rate imitation of that is preposterous.
Actually, the idea of change in species gained a foothold at least a century before Darwin. What Darwin provided was a reason for such -- the conflict between population growth and the environment. That conflict results in precisely the same pressure on breeding stock that human farmers and pet owners have been artificially imposing on their animals for the last few thousand years to spectacular result.
He was preceeded by a century or more of geologists who had started systematically studying strata and noticed that the Earth was at least several million years old. They also noticed lots of funny fossils in their rocks. People such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and others had proposed systematic change in species, but they didn't have a reason for such.
Darwin didn't just jump up and scream "Eureka". He noticed the variation in Galapagos Finches and went over his notes from the voyage. He then spent the next ten years studying variation and diversity of barnacles, thus becoming a very respected naturalist. He only started writing the Origin of Species when Alfred Russell Wallace sent Darwin a paper for proofing that described the same sort of evolutionary pressure that Darwin had been pondering for the last decade.
It's important that we are not just talking about humans -- Africa's fossil record for the last 25 million years is crap. There is a much richer wealth of fossils on other continents and for different eras, and 19th century geologists had already started cataloguing such by the time Darwin was choosing between joining the clergy or first sailing around the world.
"Missing link"? That's not scientific terminology, and it hasn't been scientific terminology for many, many decades now. The only ones talking about "missing links" these days are creationists who are under the impression that Darwin's Origin of Species is the latest and the greatest on the science front.