Everyone's view point is by definition subjective and thus "skewed". I repeatedly stated that it's *MY VIEW* that they appear more like a hate group *TO ME*, so I have clearly demonstrated what I'm claiming.
If you cling to the notion that physical violence is a necessity of being a hate group and any other definition is "skewed", then we'll just need to agree to disagree here. For anyone in the GTA, go near Chinatown and see for yourselves and you'll know what I mean by "consumed by hate".
From the tone of their pitch, I'm sure if they have the mean for violence, they would.
It is the right thing to do to point out what the CCP does wrongly (and there are tons of examples). However, if you skip elaborating things and instead just put up posters and handing out fliers that say "MAY THE HEAVEN DESTROY CCP!!" and unnecessarily exaggerate your message, it would totally contradict their message of "Truth, Tolerance".
The FLG people I see, while they may not be a representative of all FLG practitioners, do things that satisfies the search results for "define: hate group" on Google:
* A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates physical or verbal aggression toward or refusal to interact with persons on the...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group
If you read their messages on the flyers, it sounds just like a verbal aggression.
* an organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a group of a race, religion...
www.umw.edu/bias/terms/default.php
It looks like they're spending at least 80% of their time to proomte animosity and hostility against the CCP. I have never seen our local FLG people preach their "Truth/Compassion/Tolerance".
* The term "hate group" is used to describe any organization in any sector of society that aggressively demonizes or dehumanizes members of a...
www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html
Their demonization is nothing short of aggressive.
It is possible to spread the message about the malice of the CCP without the sensationalism, exaggeration and phony researches. Frankly, just a partial but factual list of what the CCP does in the past 10 years would disgust any member of a civilised society. The way the Toronto FLG people do it, it gives me an impression that they're consumed by FLG's hate towards CCP. Maybe if they replaced the sensationalism, phony researches and the "HEAVEN DESTROYS!!" message that pollute people's mind and replace them with a civilised elaboration of facts, they may get their point across MUCH more effectively then they're now.
Until they do that, I still hold my view they look more like a hate group than a religion to me.
> To tie peaceful activists to terrorists and genocidaires that would target select ethnic groups, genders, etc to violence out of hatred
A group can be a hate group without violence. CCC sucks, but watching what Falun Gong people does is also very disgusting, because it's quite obvious that the tone of their pitch *is* out of hatred, whether it's violent or not.
I know a lot of group protest with peaceful messages, and annoying passers-by with flyers with a hateful tone written all over it is not one of them - even if you don't see violence in a video taken of them.
It's probably not a cult group, but more resembles a hate group where I see them in Toronto.
They don't seem to practise what they were supposed to believe and preach (which is "Truth, Compassion, Tolerance"). Everyday they set up a booth and spread hate message about the Chinese Communist Party.
Let's put aside our judgement towards CCC itself, which must not be very positive anyway - they way Falun Gong people act just seem to totally contradict "Compassion" and "Tolerance" and it seems more and more like they're preaching "an eye for an eye".
I would not let my children go anywhere near this "religion".
> I've never understood this complaint. You have either 8 bit (256 colour) graphics for the early web, or 24 bit (full colour) for full print-ready work, but 16 bit? Why bother with 16 bit support? Its only usefulness was for monitors/graphics cards in the early 1990s that didn't support 24 bit colour due to a lack of RAM, and this was in the days when a four MEGABYTE graphics card was large. Nowadays we have 512MB cards and higher as standard; the requirement for such low bit depths is long gone. > Looking for 16 bit colour support is like checking a modern car for a crank handle, it's utterly pointless and anyone complaining that Gimp doesn't have it is simply looking for a reason to support Adobe. Brainwashing etc, call it what you will.
I've never understood why people with a half understanding, scratch that, maybe 30% understanding of something but would nonetheless pose like an expert, always post anonymously.
If you think what you said is right, don't be afraid of being mocked and login before you post.
I'd rather see submarine patents be got rid of or patent transferability restricted to get rid of the patent trolls and the "patent holding companies".
At least people who come up with these processes, come up with something. The trolls are just in the business of collecting patents and wait for their chance to cash in.
If someone distributes the source according to the GPL, does he has a right to restrict the redistribution of binaries?
A good model would be to have the source distributed as GPL but monopolise the distribution of binaries - if you can compile on your own, you can get it for $0 through the source. However, if you cannot or are too lazy to compile, you can only buy the binary from you.
Probably still a violation of the GPL, but you can modify the GPL and make it your own license for things that you own the copyright.
There is just no other reason why the Chinese government would choose its own standard.
The information ministry has already noted that mobile communications have to be "controlled". I can bet you anything that China already has in place a method to filter or control WAPI traffics.
Since my Apple II days 20 years ago, the Kensington Expert Mouse easily fits into the top 5 best money ever spent on a peripheral.
In case you wonder what the other four are: Sound Blaster Pro (on a 486), 64KB 80 column card (on an Apple), a Dell 2005FPW IPS LCD, and the original Mockingboard (Apple)
So you say getting the general mass the users excited is more important than fixing fundamental technical flaws. This is akin to dressing up a building to attract more tenants while delaying fixing its flaky foundations.
This kind of thinking got us Windows ME. Anyone looking back can tell it's a crappy piece of software even by 1999 standards.
I hope FF will be viewed in this light, it'll teach the devs not to be too arrogant and start listening to their users.
I don't see how you can define "these kind of things" to be "only cared by geeks".
Process separation is very user-facing. It crashes the entire browser when I go to a site with a bad Java applet, the Flash applets slow it down to a crawl when I have many Yahoo tabs, etc. From all of my "non-geek" friends who use FF, responsiveness is apparently something important.
Let's see. This kind of attitude had got us... Windows ME.
You also seem to grossly underestimate the number of non-geeks who have routers at home.
I remember some browser (Konqueror, is it?) uses a separate NSPluginViewer process to run Flash. It's the best approach because it let me renice the Flash.
Do you notice Flash runs at a lower priority in IE? (Try running into a busy Flash page and scroll up and down - you'll see the Flash applet slowing down but the UI scrolling of the browser is still responsive.
Not so in Firefox. Hope they'll finally get it right.
> First off, the Mozilla community is not confined to geeks on Slashdot who care passionately about things like process separation. The Firefox developer community most certainly does care about its users, but the users don't necessarily know that they want, much less could benefit from, process separation.
That's the same group of developers who wilfully ignore repeated ordinary user requests to give them an option to accept duplicate certificates, even after some big red security warning. To make things worse, it doesn't even bother to display which certificate and which CA are in violation so the user can delete them. On IE, you can click "Continue anyway" to bypass the self-issued certificate duplication and log on to your router, for example.
Their response: it's the fault of your router company.
This is ridiculous. The Mozilla devs definitely think they know better than the users.
If I give money to a project, I expect to become a stakeholder of it - i.e. the priority of my inputs to their bug tracker and wish list would take into account the contribution I make.
Otherwise, I'd be quite reluctant - probably just like everyone else.
any idea when Firefox will implement the multiple process stuff found in Chrome?
I'm probably in the minority, but I actually prefer MOST of my apps to be single-threaded (or at least sticking to one core). I can only imagine what it would feel like to have Firefox (Javascript or plugins, typically) completely max out ALL my cores the way they are one now.
You can set core affinity to your entire application. It's not a concern.
It is timing operations where Vista is as fast as or faster than XP.
I'd like to see comparisons only on operations where Vista is *slower* than XP.
Any performance improvement Windows 7 makes has to be on this front to be of any significance.
> First of all, Java does have destructors. It's called finalize().
I'm sure you know their differences. Java's finalize does NOT make RAII possible, because it's not run deterministically. RAII requires controlling the order of execution of destructors.
Not being able to perform RAII with it makes finalize() almost totally useless.
If the probe can take self-pictures, wouldn't wavelength-specific pictures be easily taken with a handful of filters, and then the pictures sent back to earth for spectrochemical analysis?
I'm tired of these "signal", "may", and "perhaps". The technology is definitely there to give a definite answer.
Slashdot Mirror
The trolls that does nothing except buy up patents for future extortion.
Make patents non-transferable, or TAX the transfer of patents, heavily. Like, at 100%, unless an exchange of patents is involved.
This would create considerable obstacle for the lawyer companies that game the system.
Everyone's view point is by definition subjective and thus "skewed". I repeatedly stated that it's *MY VIEW* that they appear more like a hate group *TO ME*, so I have clearly demonstrated what I'm claiming.
If you cling to the notion that physical violence is a necessity of being a hate group and any other definition is "skewed", then we'll just need to agree to disagree here. For anyone in the GTA, go near Chinatown and see for yourselves and you'll know what I mean by "consumed by hate".
From the tone of their pitch, I'm sure if they have the mean for violence, they would.
It is the right thing to do to point out what the CCP does wrongly (and there are tons of examples). However, if you skip elaborating things and instead just put up posters and handing out fliers that say "MAY THE HEAVEN DESTROY CCP!!" and unnecessarily exaggerate your message, it would totally contradict their message of "Truth, Tolerance".
The FLG people I see, while they may not be a representative of all FLG practitioners, do things that satisfies the search results for "define: hate group" on Google:
* A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates physical or verbal aggression toward or refusal to interact with persons on the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group
If you read their messages on the flyers, it sounds just like a verbal aggression.
* an organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a group of a race, religion ...
www.umw.edu/bias/terms/default.php
It looks like they're spending at least 80% of their time to proomte animosity and hostility against the CCP. I have never seen our local FLG people preach their "Truth/Compassion/Tolerance".
* The term "hate group" is used to describe any organization in any sector of society that aggressively demonizes or dehumanizes members of a ...
www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html
Their demonization is nothing short of aggressive.
It is possible to spread the message about the malice of the CCP without the sensationalism, exaggeration and phony researches. Frankly, just a partial but factual list of what the CCP does in the past 10 years would disgust any member of a civilised society. The way the Toronto FLG people do it, it gives me an impression that they're consumed by FLG's hate towards CCP. Maybe if they replaced the sensationalism, phony researches and the "HEAVEN DESTROYS!!" message that pollute people's mind and replace them with a civilised elaboration of facts, they may get their point across MUCH more effectively then they're now.
Until they do that, I still hold my view they look more like a hate group than a religion to me.
> To tie peaceful activists to terrorists and genocidaires that would target select ethnic groups, genders, etc to violence out of hatred
A group can be a hate group without violence. CCC sucks, but watching what Falun Gong people does is also very disgusting, because it's quite obvious that the tone of their pitch *is* out of hatred, whether it's violent or not.
I know a lot of group protest with peaceful messages, and annoying passers-by with flyers with a hateful tone written all over it is not one of them - even if you don't see violence in a video taken of them.
It's probably not a cult group, but more resembles a hate group where I see them in Toronto.
They don't seem to practise what they were supposed to believe and preach (which is "Truth, Compassion, Tolerance"). Everyday they set up a booth and spread hate message about the Chinese Communist Party.
Let's put aside our judgement towards CCC itself, which must not be very positive anyway - they way Falun Gong people act just seem to totally contradict "Compassion" and "Tolerance" and it seems more and more like they're preaching "an eye for an eye".
I would not let my children go anywhere near this "religion".
> I've never understood this complaint. You have either 8 bit (256 colour) graphics for the early web, or 24 bit (full colour) for full print-ready work, but 16 bit? Why bother with 16 bit support? Its only usefulness was for monitors/graphics cards in the early 1990s that didn't support 24 bit colour due to a lack of RAM, and this was in the days when a four MEGABYTE graphics card was large. Nowadays we have 512MB cards and higher as standard; the requirement for such low bit depths is long gone.
> Looking for 16 bit colour support is like checking a modern car for a crank handle, it's utterly pointless and anyone complaining that Gimp doesn't have it is simply looking for a reason to support Adobe. Brainwashing etc, call it what you will.
I've never understood why people with a half understanding, scratch that, maybe 30% understanding of something but would nonetheless pose like an expert, always post anonymously.
If you think what you said is right, don't be afraid of being mocked and login before you post.
I'd rather see submarine patents be got rid of or patent transferability restricted to get rid of the patent trolls and the "patent holding companies".
At least people who come up with these processes, come up with something. The trolls are just in the business of collecting patents and wait for their chance to cash in.
If someone distributes the source according to the GPL, does he has a right to restrict the redistribution of binaries?
A good model would be to have the source distributed as GPL but monopolise the distribution of binaries - if you can compile on your own, you can get it for $0 through the source. However, if you cannot or are too lazy to compile, you can only buy the binary from you.
Probably still a violation of the GPL, but you can modify the GPL and make it your own license for things that you own the copyright.
The jamming of cell phones will cost a life and spark a real controversy. I say it here first.
There is just no other reason why the Chinese government would choose its own standard.
The information ministry has already noted that mobile communications have to be "controlled". I can bet you anything that China already has in place a method to filter or control WAPI traffics.
Since my Apple II days 20 years ago, the Kensington Expert Mouse easily fits into the top 5 best money ever spent on a peripheral.
In case you wonder what the other four are: Sound Blaster Pro (on a 486), 64KB 80 column card (on an Apple), a Dell 2005FPW IPS LCD, and the original Mockingboard (Apple)
That you'll never find FF developers admitting doing ANYTHING wrong on the Bugzilla forums.
Anything. Do you believe in flawless designs? I don't - but arrogant developers apparently exist.
So you say getting the general mass the users excited is more important than fixing fundamental technical flaws. This is akin to dressing up a building to attract more tenants while delaying fixing its flaky foundations.
This kind of thinking got us Windows ME. Anyone looking back can tell it's a crappy piece of software even by 1999 standards.
I hope FF will be viewed in this light, it'll teach the devs not to be too arrogant and start listening to their users.
I don't see how you can define "these kind of things" to be "only cared by geeks".
Process separation is very user-facing. It crashes the entire browser when I go to a site with a bad Java applet, the Flash applets slow it down to a crawl when I have many Yahoo tabs, etc. From all of my "non-geek" friends who use FF, responsiveness is apparently something important.
Let's see. This kind of attitude had got us ... Windows ME.
You also seem to grossly underestimate the number of non-geeks who have routers at home.
I remember some browser (Konqueror, is it?) uses a separate NSPluginViewer process to run Flash. It's the best approach because it let me renice the Flash.
Do you notice Flash runs at a lower priority in IE? (Try running into a busy Flash page and scroll up and down - you'll see the Flash applet slowing down but the UI scrolling of the browser is still responsive.
Not so in Firefox. Hope they'll finally get it right.
> First off, the Mozilla community is not confined to geeks on Slashdot who care passionately about things like process separation. The Firefox developer community most certainly does care about its users, but the users don't necessarily know that they want, much less could benefit from, process separation.
That's the same group of developers who wilfully ignore repeated ordinary user requests to give them an option to accept duplicate certificates, even after some big red security warning. To make things worse, it doesn't even bother to display which certificate and which CA are in violation so the user can delete them. On IE, you can click "Continue anyway" to bypass the self-issued certificate duplication and log on to your router, for example.
Their response: it's the fault of your router company.
This is ridiculous. The Mozilla devs definitely think they know better than the users.
One of the long-term objectives of accreditation should be to establish a developer hierarchy.
In a hospital, a doctor's boss has to be a doctor.
In an engineering shop, an engineer's boss most likely is also an engineer.
In a software shop, what we'd like to eventually see is developers' bosses are also developers - no MBA-only type managing software engineers.
When this happens, such corner-cutting management pressure will disappear - because managers will finally become non-clueless.
If I give money to a project, I expect to become a stakeholder of it - i.e. the priority of my inputs to their bug tracker and wish list would take into account the contribution I make.
Otherwise, I'd be quite reluctant - probably just like everyone else.
> Many European cars fail American crash safety standards
Many American cars fail European safety standards as well - the standards are just different.
On the other hand, American driving test expectations are WAY below those of some European countries.
I'm probably in the minority, but I actually prefer MOST of my apps to be single-threaded (or at least sticking to one core). I can only imagine what it would feel like to have Firefox (Javascript or plugins, typically) completely max out ALL my cores the way they are one now.
You can set core affinity to your entire application. It's not a concern.
It is timing operations where Vista is as fast as or faster than XP. I'd like to see comparisons only on operations where Vista is *slower* than XP. Any performance improvement Windows 7 makes has to be on this front to be of any significance.
The GP was talking about Java. Language-wise, C# is much better designed.
> First of all, Java does have destructors. It's called finalize().
I'm sure you know their differences. Java's finalize does NOT make RAII possible, because it's not run deterministically.
RAII requires controlling the order of execution of destructors.
Not being able to perform RAII with it makes finalize() almost totally useless.
If the probe can take self-pictures, wouldn't wavelength-specific pictures be easily taken with a handful of filters, and then the pictures sent back to earth for spectrochemical analysis?
I'm tired of these "signal", "may", and "perhaps". The technology is definitely there to give a definite answer.
What's their top-of-the-line? Can it beat a mobile Geforce 7300?