This makes me glad that I didn't opt for the "lifetime" subscription option. First, because if TiVO does become annoyingly intrusive, at least I haven't been cheated out of a lifetime subscription.
Secondly, if this actually does lower the monthly cost, it makes the lifetime subsription less of a bargain.
I like the Wikipedia, and am a frequent contributor, but I completely understand its critics, and I think your points are well made.
There is a tendency world-wide, but particularly in the U.S. for people to defend their opinions with a fervor not unlike going to the battlements with a broken beer bottle. This process is all too alive and well within Wikipedia.
The biggest problem facing Wikipedia is not so much a lack of factual information, but a lack of objective information.
As you say, Mr. McHenry's positions are not biased. He is merely pointing out facts. Wikipedians should refrain from shooting the messenger.
Well, I knew they would have to spiral out, adding considerable distance to the trip, but I had no idea the spiral was so tight. It sounds like they were essentially in Earth orbit, slowly moving farther out in small increments.
In my county (it may be state-wide, I don't know) we have used what I would call electronic voting machines for years. The system works like this:
The voter physically marks his ballot (about the thickness of a postcard) with a pen. The ballot is then taken over to a reader and "read". If there is anything wrong with it, it is rejected, giving the voter an immediate opportunity to figure out what is wrong and cast a new ballot.
I've lived in different places and voted all sorts of ways, and this is the best system I've ever seen. It combines the speed of electronic results, but still keeps a valid paper-trail of the ballots cast.
From the looks of the machinery, the system is probably twenty years old (it may be older).
I am confident in this electronic system. I could never trust a system which did not include a physical ballot of some sort.
Part of the problem is that only scientific research which can attract money gets done, which makes scientific conclusions suspect. Example: simple diarrhea is the biggest killer on Earth, but how much is done about it? Everyone wants to send money to Africa to fight AIDS, no one wants to send money to Africa to provide clean water. There are no "brown ribbon" campaigns.
Throw in a culture based on relativism, and you have a situation where even if a majority of scientists believe something, we can't be sure if it's true. Do they have a political agenda? Are they wanting more money for their pet projects?
Then there is the problem that every once in a while, the majority of scientists are just plain wrong. It's not often, but occasionally there is a Galileo out there.
No, I can't be too hard on the journalists for wanting to report all sides.
I suppose I would be interested in my Great Grandfather's vacation photographs, if he were in them.
My father in law is experiencing this problem right now. He is trying to document hundreds of family pictures, scan them, and save them digitally. Far too many of the photographs have no information on them at all. Who is that? When was it taken? Where was it taken? Nobody knows. Some photographs will have something written on the back like, "David and Thelma at John's birthday party." David and Thelma who? And who is John? Which birthday party? It really makes you think.
I installed a 5 1/4" floppy drive in my PC a couple of years ago just for the purpose of archiving old programs and software.
All you need is the floppy drive; more than likely the motherboard will work with it just fine. A modern version of Wordperfect will probably read the old format.
Assuming that your great-grandchildren are going to be interested your vacation pictures fifty years from now (snigger), it is more important to make sure that the pictures are labeled or otherwise documented somehow (Anyone know who that is? I think it's your great-aunt Katherine, or is it Sue. When was that taken..?).
A spammer is like a chronic polluter. So here's the question we must ask ourselves: Would nine years be an appropriate sentence for someone who, for example, dumped toxic chemicals in a stream?
... but he apparently is getting smarter in his specialty areas as he gets older...
Heh, don't we all?
Re:Does it still garble .NET pages?
on
Firefox 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Don't take this as a flame. As a developer, I have empathy for your position.
Just keep in mind that Microsoft is going to create their tools to work properly ONLY with their browser. Using these tools, therefore, will risk alienating a certain percentage of users.
You have to decide if it is more important to you to use a tool which makes it easier to design websites, and therefore alienate a certain percentage of browsers, or try to create a website to satisfy the maximum number of users.
The parallel that I usually draw is I ask people, "Would you refuse to answer the phone n% of the time? If not, why treat web browsers the same way?" This helps put things into perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean every database in the world isn't interconnected and instantly accessible?
This makes me glad that I didn't opt for the "lifetime" subscription option. First, because if TiVO does become annoyingly intrusive, at least I haven't been cheated out of a lifetime subscription.
Secondly, if this actually does lower the monthly cost, it makes the lifetime subsription less of a bargain.
Prepare to be squashed.
Thank you for proving my point.
And take care that you don't injure yourself with that broken beer bottle.
I like the Wikipedia, and am a frequent contributor, but I completely understand its critics, and I think your points are well made.
There is a tendency world-wide, but particularly in the U.S. for people to defend their opinions with a fervor not unlike going to the battlements with a broken beer bottle. This process is all too alive and well within Wikipedia.
The biggest problem facing Wikipedia is not so much a lack of factual information, but a lack of objective information.
As you say, Mr. McHenry's positions are not biased. He is merely pointing out facts. Wikipedians should refrain from shooting the messenger.
I eat Mexican food while working on the computer.
Now I have guacoma.
Well, I knew they would have to spiral out, adding considerable distance to the trip, but I had no idea the spiral was so tight. It sounds like they were essentially in Earth orbit, slowly moving farther out in small increments.
Nope, I've got it wrong. If they travel farther in the same amount of time, they're going faster.
Still, I think I could beat them there driving my '89 Volvo.
Has anyone else worked it out? By my reckoning, the spacecraft was traveling at about 27 miles per hour.
Actually, since the trajectory would necessarily have to spiral out, it had to have been traveling even slower than that.
You could bicycle to the moon as fast.
The elections weren't rigged. Take it from someone who has been voting for a long time: Sometimes your candidate loses.
In other headlines:
"68 Year Old Grandmother Gives Birth To Alien!"
http://dontgetyournewsfromtabloidsidiot.com
You're assuming that people don't lie at exit polls. They do.
In my county (it may be state-wide, I don't know) we have used what I would call electronic voting machines for years. The system works like this:
The voter physically marks his ballot (about the thickness of a postcard) with a pen. The ballot is then taken over to a reader and "read". If there is anything wrong with it, it is rejected, giving the voter an immediate opportunity to figure out what is wrong and cast a new ballot.
I've lived in different places and voted all sorts of ways, and this is the best system I've ever seen. It combines the speed of electronic results, but still keeps a valid paper-trail of the ballots cast.
From the looks of the machinery, the system is probably twenty years old (it may be older).
I am confident in this electronic system. I could never trust a system which did not include a physical ballot of some sort.
Part of the problem is that only scientific research which can attract money gets done, which makes scientific conclusions suspect. Example: simple diarrhea is the biggest killer on Earth, but how much is done about it? Everyone wants to send money to Africa to fight AIDS, no one wants to send money to Africa to provide clean water. There are no "brown ribbon" campaigns.
Throw in a culture based on relativism, and you have a situation where even if a majority of scientists believe something, we can't be sure if it's true. Do they have a political agenda? Are they wanting more money for their pet projects?
Then there is the problem that every once in a while, the majority of scientists are just plain wrong. It's not often, but occasionally there is a Galileo out there.
No, I can't be too hard on the journalists for wanting to report all sides.
I suppose I would be interested in my Great Grandfather's vacation photographs, if he were in them.
My father in law is experiencing this problem right now. He is trying to document hundreds of family pictures, scan them, and save them digitally. Far too many of the photographs have no information on them at all. Who is that? When was it taken? Where was it taken? Nobody knows. Some photographs will have something written on the back like, "David and Thelma at John's birthday party." David and Thelma who? And who is John? Which birthday party? It really makes you think.
I installed a 5 1/4" floppy drive in my PC a couple of years ago just for the purpose of archiving old programs and software.
All you need is the floppy drive; more than likely the motherboard will work with it just fine. A modern version of Wordperfect will probably read the old format.
Assuming that your great-grandchildren are going to be interested your vacation pictures fifty years from now (snigger), it is more important to make sure that the pictures are labeled or otherwise documented somehow (Anyone know who that is? I think it's your great-aunt Katherine, or is it Sue. When was that taken..?).
A spammer is like a chronic polluter. So here's the question we must ask ourselves: Would nine years be an appropriate sentence for someone who, for example, dumped toxic chemicals in a stream?
I personally think it is an appropriate sentence.
That's great. Perhaps you should try learning some English next.
... but he apparently is getting smarter in his specialty areas as he gets older...
Heh, don't we all?
Don't take this as a flame. As a developer, I have empathy for your position.
Just keep in mind that Microsoft is going to create their tools to work properly ONLY with their browser. Using these tools, therefore, will risk alienating a certain percentage of users.
You have to decide if it is more important to you to use a tool which makes it easier to design websites, and therefore alienate a certain percentage of browsers, or try to create a website to satisfy the maximum number of users.
The parallel that I usually draw is I ask people, "Would you refuse to answer the phone n% of the time? If not, why treat web browsers the same way?" This helps put things into perspective.
I've been a Mozilla user for years, and have been recommending either it or Firefox for users.
However, I seem to run into a lot of sites, particularly those heavily using Java, which will not render properly, if at all, on Mozilla.
Does anyone else have this problem, and what exactly causes it?
The treaty is not being ignored.
The treaty only bans nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. The Air Force want anti-satellite weapons, which are not in either category.
This may or may not be the right thing to do, but the fact is the treaty is NOT being broken.
We will always have the homeless, whether we go to Mars or not.