And if you've just moved somewhere, why would the ID card have your updated address? Surely you don't think that when you change your address, you'll be able to get an updated ID card immediately?
If a referendum for AV is held, and won, you can pretty much guarantee there won't ever be a referendum for STV.
AV is arguably even less proportional than FPTP and only exists so that the two main parties can claim that they've fulfilled the public's wishes for 'electoral reform' without actually losing any of the benefits the current twisted system provides them.
Forgive an ignorant person, but what sorts of server-like things are we expecting ARM chips to be good at? My understanding is that the ARM architecture is focussed on a reduced instruction set and running at low power. Does this mean I'll be able to run my 10TB Oracle data warehouse on this, or would I more likely use them in my webserver farm to save on power bills?
In what way as a developer on linux, or even a user of linux, am I forced to care about the GPL license in any way, shape or form? I've written non-GPL linux applications and not had to care, and I've been a long time user and not had to care. So here I am, happily developing on linux and distributing applications under whatever license I want - what choice has been removed?
The difference, obviously, is that once you've bought into Apple's wonder-universe, you're pretty much forced into doing things their way, as a user, or as a dev. There's restrictions on stuff you can do in Linux too, but here's the kicker - you can choose whether or not those restrictions apply to you. See?
How is it a red herring that the GPL is 'restrictive' entirely because of copyright law? Or is it a bitch because it lets the developer have some say in how his source code is distributed whilst (mostly) sill allowing others to benefit from it at zero (beer) cost?
I'm sure you'll find it a very useful device, but as a developer, having to pay for the SDK and then have all my work have to be approved by Apple before I can lawfully distribute it on the target platform is ridiculous.
They're not the only people who do it, but it doesn't make it any less off-putting. At least on Windows/Linux/regular OSX/Solaris/OpenBSD/VMS/AIX, I can write an application that does something useful and then give it to my friends.
Oh, and remind me what's the process for writing an application for the iPhone/iPad and distributing it to others again? Is it something you can do cheaply and easily?
1. I think we'll have to disagree on what's better. In my view, anything that increases the amount of useful knowledge in the world is better than a sense of self-enablement.
2. The data suggests it's all in your mind. There's nothing to suggest that anything the chiropractor did could also have been done by someone in a wizard's hat waving his hands around and saying 'woooooo'.
3. Interestingly, there have been studies where the placebo effect has worked even when the participant knew it was a placebo. It's not an effect based in deception. As I said before, my irk is that chiropractors don't appear to acknowledge the placebo effect at all. And I'd wager that no matter how much I didn't want an antibiotic to work, chances are that it'd clear up the infection it was treating.
4. I don't argue that chiro does nothing, I argue that it does 'nothing beneficial'. That doesn't mean to say that it doesn't have the potential to cause great harm. In a similar way that smashing someone in the face with a brick may, in certain cases, fix their wonky front teeth, it's also a potentially harmful thing to do to someone.
1. Not knowing how something works is better than knowing how it works because you did it yourself? You're right, we don't know how most of nature works. But we spend a great deal of time and energy trying to figure it out because the results might be useful to others.
2. No, you getting fixed doesn't means chiropractic works, the only thing it means is 'you got fixed'. We have no idea how. It may have been magic ponies. It may have been the previous doctor visits that you had. We don't know. You may think it works because you believe you had a good experience, but there's no reason to suggest that doing the same thing to others will have the same effect. On the contrary in medicine, there is evidence to suggest that if you have a headache, ibuprofen will help.
3. So you're saying that the false claims made by chiropractors about what they do and how they do it just a ruse that actually helps us?
4. You seem to have missed the point. I'll say it again. Everything can harm people. I'm sure there's plenty of data about people being harmed by medicinal drugs, as well as data about people being harmed by chiropractice, and playing football, and going to the moon etc. You original assertion about chiropractic was 'Worst case it won't do any damage'. This isn't true.
1- It's even better if it's placebo. The only thing better that medecine that works, is non-medicine that works.
How is non-medicine that works 'better' than medicine that works? Surely in the first case, we hvae no idea what happened and don't have much of a chance of successfully repeating it in the future. Surely if it worked, we'd call it just 'medicine'? If we have a situation where the only conclusion we can come to is 'non-medicine worked', we're basically saying 'we don't know what the fuck happened'.
I got fixed for less money, side effects, suffering and hassle than by my 2 trys at regular medicine.
You may have gotten fixed for less money than 'regular medicine'. However, I'm sure you know, this doesn't mean that chiropractice 'works'. And by 'works', I mean we can go and get measurable reproducable results across all sorts of situations, and then actually use those results to help people.
I'm 100% sure there IS some psychological part to any illness and cure, indeed. Your point is ? Placebo cures are bad, and non-placebo -non-cures are good ?
My point about placebos isn't that there's inherently bad or good, but that we should know it when we see it. Doctors use placebos all the time to treat people, and they don't try to dress it up as something different. Chiropractice (and a lot of 'alternative medicine', whatever the hell that means) does exactly that sort of dressing up. If they came right out and said "It works by placebo", most people wouldn't have a problem with that.
2- I've heard reports of people seriously injured by regular medicine. Plenty of them actually. My take is that medicine is not a perfect science ?
Sure, people get hurt by medicine all the time. The key difference is that medicine also makes a demonstrable statistically significant positive difference to millions of people daily. Sure, there's a risk with everything that we try and do to make our lives better, that sometimes it'll go wrong. Usually, that risk is worth taking if the upside is big enough. I'm just saying that for me, the risk of being injured by a guy with no medical qualifications practising something that's never been properly demonstrated to be anything other than the placebo affect is not a risk I'm willing to take. I am willing to go to the hospital if I'm sick though.
You mean: "Worst case, the chiropractor does significant damage, base case, placebo kicks in and heals me"?
The data suggests that the best case with chiropractic is just the placebo effect. And I haven't got hard data to hand, but I've read reports in the past of people being seriously injured by chiropractors.
Nope, you pay the fee if you watch or receive TV broadcasts as they are broadcast. Ownership of a TV doesn't come into it. It's actually very difficult for them to legally force you to pay it, as they'd have to take you to court with sufficient evidence that you watched or received TV as it was broadcast whilst not having a license.
I understand base 2. I understand why it's a good idea. My beef isn't with the concept, it's with the terminology. This whole thing wouldn't be a problem if the SI prefixes that the rest of the world have been using for centuries hadn't been bastardised to mean something completely different, but they were.
We're now in a situation where a label that's meant to be consistent is not consistent. If someone out there's trying to change the convention towards something that actually makes more sense and is more consistent, I applaud that.
The reason we have standards is so that they're unambiguous. In the same way that "meter" is a measure of "amount of distance", "byte" is a measure of "amount of data". Saying "One kilo-meter" should mean the same thing to distance as "One kilo-byte" means to data.
Discussion is great and everything, but if you say things like "GiB... has no meaning", when the reality is that it's very well defined, you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
There are times when the convention is confusing and should be changed. I believe this is one of those times. We already have an established system for depicting multiple powers of things, lets not do things differently for no other reason than stubbornness.
I'm sorry, but "It's always been that way" isn't a good enough argument. I don't really care how HDD manufacturers market their drives, as long as they're accurate with the information. If they sold me a "5 rabbit disk" and then defined a rabbit as 32,384,273 bytes, that's fine by me. As far as I know, because disk drive manufacturing is not a regulated industry, the manufacturers are not under any obligation to market their products in a way that makes them directly and easily comparable to their competitors (unlike, say, credit cards).
If you think I'm somehow a 'spinner' or a sucker for (a) understanding what prefixes actually mean and (b) knowing how to read, then there's something wrong here. I suspect you're just a cranky old-timer who can't cope with change, especially if it's for the better.
You seem to think that a bug in an operating system that misreports the size of storage devices is somehow fraud on the part of the device manufacturers.
I'm not the one that's confused. I understand numbers.
Not just the BBC, try Reuters or CNN, all of whom make their content available for free on their websites. How do they do that? Because they're diverse enough to make money elsewhere. Murdoch is basically complaining about companies who are smarter than he is.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you've just moved somewhere, why would the ID card have your updated address? Surely you don't think that when you change your address, you'll be able to get an updated ID card immediately?
If a referendum for AV is held, and won, you can pretty much guarantee there won't ever be a referendum for STV.
AV is arguably even less proportional than FPTP and only exists so that the two main parties can claim that they've fulfilled the public's wishes for 'electoral reform' without actually losing any of the benefits the current twisted system provides them.
Query strings are encrypted over SSL.
Forgive an ignorant person, but what sorts of server-like things are we expecting ARM chips to be good at? My understanding is that the ARM architecture is focussed on a reduced instruction set and running at low power. Does this mean I'll be able to run my 10TB Oracle data warehouse on this, or would I more likely use them in my webserver farm to save on power bills?
I just ssh in and kill it from there.
Well, actually, some of them, yes, are free.
http://www.microsoft.com/express/Windows/
The point I was making though is that if I want support, I want the option whether to pay for it or not. It's just a shameless moneyspinner.
What a curious perspective.
In what way as a developer on linux, or even a user of linux, am I forced to care about the GPL license in any way, shape or form? I've written non-GPL linux applications and not had to care, and I've been a long time user and not had to care. So here I am, happily developing on linux and distributing applications under whatever license I want - what choice has been removed?
The difference, obviously, is that once you've bought into Apple's wonder-universe, you're pretty much forced into doing things their way, as a user, or as a dev. There's restrictions on stuff you can do in Linux too, but here's the kicker - you can choose whether or not those restrictions apply to you. See?
How is it a red herring that the GPL is 'restrictive' entirely because of copyright law? Or is it a bitch because it lets the developer have some say in how his source code is distributed whilst (mostly) sill allowing others to benefit from it at zero (beer) cost?
I'm sure you'll find it a very useful device, but as a developer, having to pay for the SDK and then have all my work have to be approved by Apple before I can lawfully distribute it on the target platform is ridiculous.
They're not the only people who do it, but it doesn't make it any less off-putting. At least on Windows/Linux/regular OSX/Solaris/OpenBSD/VMS/AIX, I can write an application that does something useful and then give it to my friends.
You mean, copyright law is a bitch?
Lock-in = removal of choice.
'Thou must use iTunes' = removal of that choice.
It isn't that hard to grasp.
Oh, and remind me what's the process for writing an application for the iPhone/iPad and distributing it to others again? Is it something you can do cheaply and easily?
1. I think we'll have to disagree on what's better. In my view, anything that increases the amount of useful knowledge in the world is better than a sense of self-enablement.
2. The data suggests it's all in your mind. There's nothing to suggest that anything the chiropractor did could also have been done by someone in a wizard's hat waving his hands around and saying 'woooooo'.
3. Interestingly, there have been studies where the placebo effect has worked even when the participant knew it was a placebo. It's not an effect based in deception. As I said before, my irk is that chiropractors don't appear to acknowledge the placebo effect at all. And I'd wager that no matter how much I didn't want an antibiotic to work, chances are that it'd clear up the infection it was treating.
4. I don't argue that chiro does nothing, I argue that it does 'nothing beneficial'. That doesn't mean to say that it doesn't have the potential to cause great harm. In a similar way that smashing someone in the face with a brick may, in certain cases, fix their wonky front teeth, it's also a potentially harmful thing to do to someone.
1. Not knowing how something works is better than knowing how it works because you did it yourself? You're right, we don't know how most of nature works. But we spend a great deal of time and energy trying to figure it out because the results might be useful to others.
2. No, you getting fixed doesn't means chiropractic works, the only thing it means is 'you got fixed'. We have no idea how. It may have been magic ponies. It may have been the previous doctor visits that you had. We don't know. You may think it works because you believe you had a good experience, but there's no reason to suggest that doing the same thing to others will have the same effect. On the contrary in medicine, there is evidence to suggest that if you have a headache, ibuprofen will help.
3. So you're saying that the false claims made by chiropractors about what they do and how they do it just a ruse that actually helps us?
4. You seem to have missed the point. I'll say it again. Everything can harm people. I'm sure there's plenty of data about people being harmed by medicinal drugs, as well as data about people being harmed by chiropractice, and playing football, and going to the moon etc. You original assertion about chiropractic was 'Worst case it won't do any damage'. This isn't true.
How is non-medicine that works 'better' than medicine that works? Surely in the first case, we hvae no idea what happened and don't have much of a chance of successfully repeating it in the future. Surely if it worked, we'd call it just 'medicine'? If we have a situation where the only conclusion we can come to is 'non-medicine worked', we're basically saying 'we don't know what the fuck happened'.
You may have gotten fixed for less money than 'regular medicine'. However, I'm sure you know, this doesn't mean that chiropractice 'works'. And by 'works', I mean we can go and get measurable reproducable results across all sorts of situations, and then actually use those results to help people.
My point about placebos isn't that there's inherently bad or good, but that we should know it when we see it. Doctors use placebos all the time to treat people, and they don't try to dress it up as something different. Chiropractice (and a lot of 'alternative medicine', whatever the hell that means) does exactly that sort of dressing up. If they came right out and said "It works by placebo", most people wouldn't have a problem with that.
Sure, people get hurt by medicine all the time. The key difference is that medicine also makes a demonstrable statistically significant positive difference to millions of people daily. Sure, there's a risk with everything that we try and do to make our lives better, that sometimes it'll go wrong. Usually, that risk is worth taking if the upside is big enough. I'm just saying that for me, the risk of being injured by a guy with no medical qualifications practising something that's never been properly demonstrated to be anything other than the placebo affect is not a risk I'm willing to take. I am willing to go to the hospital if I'm sick though.
You mean: "Worst case, the chiropractor does significant damage, base case, placebo kicks in and heals me"?
The data suggests that the best case with chiropractic is just the placebo effect. And I haven't got hard data to hand, but I've read reports in the past of people being seriously injured by chiropractors.
Nope, you pay the fee if you watch or receive TV broadcasts as they are broadcast. Ownership of a TV doesn't come into it. It's actually very difficult for them to legally force you to pay it, as they'd have to take you to court with sufficient evidence that you watched or received TV as it was broadcast whilst not having a license.
I understand base 2. I understand why it's a good idea. My beef isn't with the concept, it's with the terminology. This whole thing wouldn't be a problem if the SI prefixes that the rest of the world have been using for centuries hadn't been bastardised to mean something completely different, but they were.
We're now in a situation where a label that's meant to be consistent is not consistent. If someone out there's trying to change the convention towards something that actually makes more sense and is more consistent, I applaud that.
The reason we have standards is so that they're unambiguous. In the same way that "meter" is a measure of "amount of distance", "byte" is a measure of "amount of data". Saying "One kilo-meter" should mean the same thing to distance as "One kilo-byte" means to data.
... has no meaning", when the reality is that it's very well defined, you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
Discussion is great and everything, but if you say things like "GiB
There are times when the convention is confusing and should be changed. I believe this is one of those times. We already have an established system for depicting multiple powers of things, lets not do things differently for no other reason than stubbornness.
I take your point, but I'd probably say that the abuse of the prefixes by HDD manufacturers happened in the past, and we're now correcting for that.
I'm sorry, but "It's always been that way" isn't a good enough argument. I don't really care how HDD manufacturers market their drives, as long as they're accurate with the information. If they sold me a "5 rabbit disk" and then defined a rabbit as 32,384,273 bytes, that's fine by me. As far as I know, because disk drive manufacturing is not a regulated industry, the manufacturers are not under any obligation to market their products in a way that makes them directly and easily comparable to their competitors (unlike, say, credit cards).
If you think I'm somehow a 'spinner' or a sucker for (a) understanding what prefixes actually mean and (b) knowing how to read, then there's something wrong here. I suspect you're just a cranky old-timer who can't cope with change, especially if it's for the better.
You seem to think that a bug in an operating system that misreports the size of storage devices is somehow fraud on the part of the device manufacturers.
I'm not the one that's confused. I understand numbers.
Networking, along with everything else, except memory sizes. A far cry from base-2 being a "standard in the computer world".
Seriously? Your entire argument is based on "It sounds silly"?
Is my Gigabit network an RF device? How many bits per second does it shift?
Not just the BBC, try Reuters or CNN, all of whom make their content available for free on their websites. How do they do that? Because they're diverse enough to make money elsewhere. Murdoch is basically complaining about companies who are smarter than he is.
You could have just ignored them. They don't have any legal power over you without a court order, and they're not getting one fast.