Hah. Having something interpret HTML would've been great. We had to use netcat, and we liked it! Kept the pages simple. But, no, the new-fangled whiz-bang AJAX crap makes it all messy, and now we need to practice being a JavaScript interpreter just to *post* to slashdot...
but I think they have it backwards. I think dumbasses are likely to drive stupidly and be stupid enough to spend money to load up their car with that crap.
Correlation != Causation - but you already knew that. I know you did, did you, 'researchers'?
I assume that, by nature of 3 architecture shifts, Mac devels know how to write and maintain portable code. (68k->PPC, PPC->x86)
A *lot* of people would be burned if they switched away already. PPC still works great for most people.
If there are some features that don't work (or even don't work well enough) on PPC, then by all means make it x86-only
But they shouldn't drop support already. Out of the people I know who switched away from Windows, the thing they've been happiest with has been the fact that they don't need a new computer every 3 years. That's a major selling point - buy a computer and it's an investment, so we'll keep it working great for YEARS.
Disclosure - I'm not a mac fanboi by any means, and use Windows on a daily basis. I'd switch to linux if it wasn't for games. But I can recognize benefits when I see 'em.
I ride in a volunteer ambulance squad in my (small) town. There are approximately 3000 families and 7000 people. We're well-funded.
But if you do the math... our donations this year (we just finished our 'mailings' - a massive yearly fundraiser) totaled about $24,000
Or $8 a household.
Granted, we're not a charity. But we have more of an impact in day-to-day lives than a charity ever could. And, obviously, many (most) people don't donate and those who have received treatment donate quite a bit more (hundreds).
I'm not complaining; our donations are plenty sufficient to maintain our two ambulances and get all the new equipment we need (power stretchers ftw!).
We don't get any town funding, by the way.
If taxes were, say, cut in half - would people suddenly start donating more than (average) $8 a family? I don't believe so - it's not like $8 is a hardship along the lines of 'oh, well I can only afford to donate this much - if only we had no taxes'
If every household donated $50, we could buy a new ambulance. That's not much of a hardship for anybody at all.
Compare this to charities, which are even *less* likely to get donations than a volunteer ambulance squad in a small town, and you quickly see why the 'let charities pick up the burden' bit doesn't work. We have enough to get by, but take away the ambulance bit and we're just another charity. We'd be bankrupt.
Hmm. Well if you think there's more poverty now than in the 30's, and less education, I'll just need to laugh, turn, and walk away.
Because I don't think you actually meant that, Isn't crime much less of a problem now? One of the first links on google: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020712.html
You grew up in the 20s and 30s. This one's the most interesting of all. Comparing violent crime today with 70 to 80 years ago is problematic. Federal uniform crime reporting didn't begin until 1930 and was spotty at first. Reporting requirements and definitions have changed over the years. Many authorities believe that years ago violent crime was reported much less than it is today. The one crime statistic believed to be comparable over long periods of time is the homicide rate--people tend to report dead bodies. Seems that poor people (there were a lot in the 30's and 70's) tend to commit crimes (at least murders).
Yes, that's overpriced. That one example is overpriced.
In general- Governments regulate drugs. It's been that way for about a hundred years (TR), and it was mainly in concern for things like V!@GR@ (except, you know, a hundred years ago) that would fucking kill people. (If you argued against this, I'd clock you)
So if we can agree that gov't regulation of prescriptions is good... and almost every health insurance plan covers prescriptions (or part of it), that's just the free market at work. They can charge a lot for that little bit of plastic, or more relevantly your antibiotics, because insurance pays for most/all of it, for most people.
I admit this is a little tricky to solve, but a more nationalized chain of healthcare (doctors->pharmas->drugstores) would remove a lot of the ability of one link to milk the next.
Well said. If you 'don't recognize government as the agency that should be allowed to determine how those societal benefits are distributed.', I've only ever seen it as a fancy, good-sounding way of saying 'I don't want to spend a pittance helping other people who would give their leg for a tenth of the luck that I have'
People who donate to private charities would (and already do) pay their taxes, etc. Why would it be *better* if there were no taxes?
You are *so* full of shit.
2. Competition among private services gives private companies an incentive to provide the best possible service at the lowest price. Because there is only one provider for a public service (and no competing providers are permitted to exist), there is no incentive for public services to provide the best service or the cheapest service. Bull-fucking-shit. You gonna tell me we can have competeing electric grids, water providers, and even fucking sewers???
You still haven't explained how 'government-provided medicine' == 'Everyone has a right to property... When the government (or anyone else) starts forcefully taking away that property'
Money hasn't been 'property' in the same sense as a house, since we gave up bartering our shells and stuff. A welfare tax (almost certainly less than your current health insurance) would NOT be 'forcefully taking away [your] property'
And the best bit is this line:
Both he and his wife have spoken very openly about altruism, which by definition must require the curbing (read: abolition) of property rights. Seriously, now. How does altruism (donations and such) 'abolish' property rights? If I donate to a church, am I giving up my right to own a car to the community? Remember, money isn't property unless it's beads.
For reference:
Altruism: the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others How does that equal 'the curbing of property rights'?????
And because I can see from here that you must be a Libertarian, I hate to break it to you but the free market sucks. Especially for the kinds of things that tend to be socialized, like sewers, electricity, phone... It's called a 'natural monopoly' and it allows companies to indiscriminately rape customers. Aren't you glad you don't need to rent your phone any more?
Bullshit. Our government exists with the consent of the MAJORITY
If all those poor people who benefit and are able to get a leg-up once and a while to be slightly more on-par with an average self-sufficient person, went up against a rich bastard who's pissed because a fraction of his money went to help him, you would lose.
Executive version: Pissed multitudes > rich tightwads. Usually bloodily so.
Except for the fact that we, in fact, had a surplus only a couple of years ago.
Responsible financing for, oh let's say 8 years, could get us out of a SIGNIFICANT debt. Think a budget of half the tax income for 8 years... we'd be fine by then.
Half the tax base is still plenty of money, even if we do work on social programs and the like. We just need to be efficient.
Republicans (and by that I mean neocons, not real rep's) tend to talk about that ('think of the chiiiildren!!!') - as long as it's not inner-city blacks.
Democrats tend to talk about those kinds of things, except their main argument comes to be how it reduces overall costs and is in general the right thing to do. Oh - and they plan to remove one of the biggest money-holes we've ever made (Iraq) which would free up loads for this kind of stuff. The religious charity bit is admittedly pandering to stupid people - which there do seem to be a lot of.
So my main problem with your question is the fact that it's a gross oversimplification - to the point of misleading.
And, to address the original issue, people are religious. Some people are evangelically religious. This is not a political thing, but the reverse. Republican's 'family values' appeal to born-agains, so they go to Republicans - not Republicans turn evangelicals.
(p.s. I realize my statement about religion in the second paragraph could be mis-interpreted. I meant in the fact that there are plenty of good, non-religious reasons for (say) a welfare program. If you need the influence of religion to not be a prick, you're an idiot.)
Will Apple continue to play nice with the OSS world and release this new engine back to KHTML?
And is it possible that Tamarin (Mozilla's version of this) and this will merge, creating some ridiculous new super-fast JS magic engine, interpreting code yet to be written?
sweet job reading troll. you didn't even need to read all those big words. here's a bunch of tiny words (they happened to be at the end of his post so you couldn't miss them)
> So, in summary, the 9,000 servers were not blown up. Only the power.
yeah, I know, I'm being a prick right now, but I've got karma to burn and people who don't read piss me off
So they hung a string from a pole and called it a 'wind-measuring device'
Yeah, it's great and works really well, but did they really need the 'extremely lightweight Kapton tube hanging in Kevlar fiber'
How about a bit of fishline?
No troll, why did they need something so sophisticated? The martin environment is hostile, and the string would need to be awfully light, but why wouldn't a bit of reflective fishline work? It'd hold up pretty well...
And before I say this, let me say that I think NASA needs to be given more money; space research is important. But how much did they spend on this 'extremely lightweight Kapton tube hanging in Kevlar fiber', that looks like it could be replaced with fishline?
Well if you're talking about a Verizon motorola phone, verizon makes their own and it's a massive POS. The original one is actually quite good and very intuitive (and quite hackable)
Slashdot Mirror
Hah. Having something interpret HTML would've been great. We had to use netcat, and we liked it! Kept the pages simple. But, no, the new-fangled whiz-bang AJAX crap makes it all messy, and now we need to practice being a JavaScript interpreter just to *post* to slashdot...
but I think they have it backwards. I think dumbasses are likely to drive stupidly and be stupid enough to spend money to load up their car with that crap.
Correlation != Causation - but you already knew that. I know you did, did you, 'researchers'?
but can't we use it for something benifical to somebody or something other than a failing business model?
Encryption?
Authentication (banks, etc)?
If you can't fake one of these, there's much better and more beneficial ways to use this... rather than making sure Joe doesn't copy your shitty song.
I assume that, by nature of 3 architecture shifts, Mac devels know how to write and maintain portable code. (68k->PPC, PPC->x86)
A *lot* of people would be burned if they switched away already. PPC still works great for most people.
If there are some features that don't work (or even don't work well enough) on PPC, then by all means make it x86-only
But they shouldn't drop support already. Out of the people I know who switched away from Windows, the thing they've been happiest with has been the fact that they don't need a new computer every 3 years. That's a major selling point - buy a computer and it's an investment, so we'll keep it working great for YEARS.
Disclosure - I'm not a mac fanboi by any means, and use Windows on a daily basis. I'd switch to linux if it wasn't for games. But I can recognize benefits when I see 'em.
Would they? It's an honest question.
I ride in a volunteer ambulance squad in my (small) town. There are approximately 3000 families and 7000 people. We're well-funded.
But if you do the math... our donations this year (we just finished our 'mailings' - a massive yearly fundraiser) totaled about $24,000
Or $8 a household.
Granted, we're not a charity. But we have more of an impact in day-to-day lives than a charity ever could. And, obviously, many (most) people don't donate and those who have received treatment donate quite a bit more (hundreds).
I'm not complaining; our donations are plenty sufficient to maintain our two ambulances and get all the new equipment we need (power stretchers ftw!).
We don't get any town funding, by the way.
If taxes were, say, cut in half - would people suddenly start donating more than (average) $8 a family? I don't believe so - it's not like $8 is a hardship along the lines of 'oh, well I can only afford to donate this much - if only we had no taxes'
If every household donated $50, we could buy a new ambulance. That's not much of a hardship for anybody at all.
Compare this to charities, which are even *less* likely to get donations than a volunteer ambulance squad in a small town, and you quickly see why the 'let charities pick up the burden' bit doesn't work. We have enough to get by, but take away the ambulance bit and we're just another charity. We'd be bankrupt.
Because I don't think you actually meant that,
Isn't crime much less of a problem now? One of the first links on google: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020712.html You grew up in the 20s and 30s. This one's the most interesting of all. Comparing violent crime today with 70 to 80 years ago is problematic. Federal uniform crime reporting didn't begin until 1930 and was spotty at first. Reporting requirements and definitions have changed over the years. Many authorities believe that years ago violent crime was reported much less than it is today. The one crime statistic believed to be comparable over long periods of time is the homicide rate--people tend to report dead bodies. Seems that poor people (there were a lot in the 30's and 70's) tend to commit crimes (at least murders).
Yes, that's overpriced. That one example is overpriced.
In general-
Governments regulate drugs. It's been that way for about a hundred years (TR), and it was mainly in concern for things like V!@GR@ (except, you know, a hundred years ago) that would fucking kill people. (If you argued against this, I'd clock you)
So if we can agree that gov't regulation of prescriptions is good... and almost every health insurance plan covers prescriptions (or part of it), that's just the free market at work. They can charge a lot for that little bit of plastic, or more relevantly your antibiotics, because insurance pays for most/all of it, for most people.
I admit this is a little tricky to solve, but a more nationalized chain of healthcare (doctors->pharmas->drugstores) would remove a lot of the ability of one link to milk the next.
Unless the corrupt portions are fucking crucial to the daily functioning of society (think credit).
If there was *no* credit all of a sudden, we'd be fucked.
Care to guess how people would buy houses? Or can you pay the $500,000 up front?
Some people aren't as lucky as that.
Well said. If you 'don't recognize government as the agency that should be allowed to determine how those societal benefits are distributed.', I've only ever seen it as a fancy, good-sounding way of saying 'I don't want to spend a pittance helping other people who would give their leg for a tenth of the luck that I have'
People who donate to private charities would (and already do) pay their taxes, etc. Why would it be *better* if there were no taxes?
I've never seen a poor Libertarian.
You still haven't explained how 'government-provided medicine' == 'Everyone has a right to property
Money hasn't been 'property' in the same sense as a house, since we gave up bartering our shells and stuff. A welfare tax (almost certainly less than your current health insurance) would NOT be 'forcefully taking away [your] property'
And the best bit is this line: Both he and his wife have spoken very openly about altruism, which by definition must require the curbing (read: abolition) of property rights. Seriously, now. How does altruism (donations and such) 'abolish' property rights? If I donate to a church, am I giving up my right to own a car to the community? Remember, money isn't property unless it's beads.
For reference: Altruism: the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others How does that equal 'the curbing of property rights'?????
And because I can see from here that you must be a Libertarian, I hate to break it to you but the free market sucks. Especially for the kinds of things that tend to be socialized, like sewers, electricity, phone... It's called a 'natural monopoly' and it allows companies to indiscriminately rape customers. Aren't you glad you don't need to rent your phone any more?
Shit dude, I'd donate. If somebody seriously could decrypt an arbitrary file they'd be a god (aside from us all being fucked)
Bullshit. Our government exists with the consent of the MAJORITY
If all those poor people who benefit and are able to get a leg-up once and a while to be slightly more on-par with an average self-sufficient person, went up against a rich bastard who's pissed because a fraction of his money went to help him, you would lose.
Executive version: Pissed multitudes > rich tightwads. Usually bloodily so.
Except for the fact that we, in fact, had a surplus only a couple of years ago.
Responsible financing for, oh let's say 8 years, could get us out of a SIGNIFICANT debt. Think a budget of half the tax income for 8 years... we'd be fine by then.
Half the tax base is still plenty of money, even if we do work on social programs and the like. We just need to be efficient.
Well...
Republicans (and by that I mean neocons, not real rep's) tend to talk about that ('think of the chiiiildren!!!') - as long as it's not inner-city blacks.
Democrats tend to talk about those kinds of things, except their main argument comes to be how it reduces overall costs and is in general the right thing to do. Oh - and they plan to remove one of the biggest money-holes we've ever made (Iraq) which would free up loads for this kind of stuff. The religious charity bit is admittedly pandering to stupid people - which there do seem to be a lot of.
So my main problem with your question is the fact that it's a gross oversimplification - to the point of misleading.
And, to address the original issue, people are religious. Some people are evangelically religious. This is not a political thing, but the reverse. Republican's 'family values' appeal to born-agains, so they go to Republicans - not Republicans turn evangelicals.
(p.s. I realize my statement about religion in the second paragraph could be mis-interpreted. I meant in the fact that there are plenty of good, non-religious reasons for (say) a welfare program. If you need the influence of religion to not be a prick, you're an idiot.)
Hey - since UID 1000000, anyone under it is an old fart :)
But I got nothing on you
If you think you're right, you gotta do better than "Hah! You're wrong! ..."
Care to explain where he was mistaken?
Great. Thanks
Will Apple continue to play nice with the OSS world and release this new engine back to KHTML?
And is it possible that Tamarin (Mozilla's version of this) and this will merge, creating some ridiculous new super-fast JS magic engine, interpreting code yet to be written?
I dunno, a wet tee-shirt?
Just not on Balmer. OH GOD MY EYES!!!
ahahaha
sweet job reading troll. you didn't even need to read all those big words. here's a bunch of tiny words (they happened to be at the end of his post so you couldn't miss them)
> So, in summary, the 9,000 servers were not blown up. Only the power.
yeah, I know, I'm being a prick right now, but I've got karma to burn and people who don't read piss me off
I've been seeing this at school for over a year. Except it's much more general.
People call it the "Wikipedia game" - basically, two people start off at the same random article and decide on an endpoint.
When time is started (go!), both people take off and try to get from the first article to the next to the next, to get to the other article.
For example:
Johann Christoph Doderlein>Philology>Noam Chomsky>Philadelphia>Benjamin Franklin>Deborah Read>Smallpox>Vaccination
This is just a logical extension of that.
So they hung a string from a pole and called it a 'wind-measuring device'
Yeah, it's great and works really well, but did they really need the 'extremely lightweight Kapton tube hanging in Kevlar fiber'
How about a bit of fishline?
No troll, why did they need something so sophisticated? The martin environment is hostile, and the string would need to be awfully light, but why wouldn't a bit of reflective fishline work? It'd hold up pretty well...
And before I say this, let me say that I think NASA needs to be given more money; space research is important.
But how much did they spend on this 'extremely lightweight Kapton tube hanging in Kevlar fiber', that looks like it could be replaced with fishline?
Not so much. You see, that's the point he was making - he doesn't want sites that bypass the perfectly-good HTML code for said menus.
Oh - didn't he mention that you can disable it on a case by case basis, or by a whitelist? Or did you not see that?
CowboyNeal's karma is squarely in the 'Creepy' category.
CmdrTaco, however, obviously does have 'Nirvana' karma. How could it be any other way?
Well if you're talking about a Verizon motorola phone, verizon makes their own and it's a massive POS. The original one is actually quite good and very intuitive (and quite hackable)