There are really two possible meanings for "television is worse now." One is that there used to be more shows on worth watching. The other is that shows were "better".
The third possible meaning is that all the really awful programming from that era, and there was a LOT, either was never recorded or nobody bothers to take it out of the vault. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to hearken back to the 'good old times' while forgetting that 'the good old times' the way we remember it consists of the rare examples of good television programming back then that were worth saving.
This discovery also provides a compelling argument for preservation efforts in Southeast Asia.
I would say definitely this does not provide such an arguement at all.
Obviously, these animals have done fine without scientists meddling around in their habitat. I read an article (possibly the linked article) about these animals a few days ago, and the scientists were 'eager' to trap a few live.
Uh... I guess they'll need 'further funding' for the effort as well, we can figure.
Habitat preservation is a serious issue, and I am not going to pretend it isn't important. But let's be real, the animals did fine without it up to this point, so this is hardly an instance where the evidence shows a 'compelling arguement.' It's just a newly discovered species.
The old industrialist model of software development is to have rows and rows of programmers sitting in cubicles, each working on one small part of the whole.
You are talking complete nonsense. There is no 'old industrialist' model of software development. The 'old' software was developed largely the same way as much is today. WordStar wasn't written by a huge team, neither was VisiCalc. There may be a 'middle period' characterized by Microsoft and Oracle and some other entities, where they tried to 'jam mass labor' at a project, but most of what comes from the process is one-time messes that are scrapped and rewritten for each major release.
The 'Old Industrialist' model that you badly parody in your comments was already dead or dying before there was any mainstream 'computing' going on beyond the old 'Data Processing' beehive operations that dominated the early 'computer' field.
MIT gets a lot more geek-worship than is warranted, to be honest. Historically, MIT has missed the boat on some of the significant technical innovations of the last century. The Transistor, for instance. MIT was mired in a nickel plated vacuum tube world while folks elsewhere were developing the transistor. MIT in many regards is a profoundly conservative institution. Full of the credential-bound, and churning out the conformist minds who keep corporate cubicles full.
So if someone forks the code and produces a version that does this, Mozilla would be thrown out of the 'Google services' operation and lose the funding??
I'm just asking because if it hasn't already happened, it will.
Somebody should fork the code and make a version that makes the Mozilla Foundation twice as much money from Google.
It would have to initiate random Google Searches, then autoclick ads on the Google page.
It could probably be done nicely in a plug-in without even requiring a code fork.
So who's for coding this 'suck google green' plugin? Anybody got a little spare time? You wouldn't be 'working for free' if you think of harvesting some googlebucks for Mozilla (that otherwise would go to the admen who Google is mostly made up of these days) is a good thing.
No, actually transparency is crucial to unethical behavior. What I mean is that if everybody behaved ethically, there would be no need for transparency. People could, uh... mind their own business if we all were totally ethical.
If the world were as you describe it, nobody could ever be trusted about anything, for any reason. In your world the only way people could be expected to be civil to one another is if some overbearing force watching over them would come down on them if they didn't remain civil.
That isn't how the world works. It isn't how the world has ever worked. There are degrees of transparency and opaqueness and it isn't a bad thing.
You don't have to be a 'serious audiophile' to know that Bose speakers are a ripoff. You can just be someone who knows enough about tech and sound and audio to know there are cheaper alternatives that are superior.
Buying Bose gear is just stupid. It can't be expressed more succintly than that.
Naw. I will never 'outgrow' this place. I could use a few big outbuildings, but the land is out back there for me to build them on. So I will, when the money is available. I will certainly NEVER outgrow this basic house.
A sealed and environmentally controlled second building for my tech and toys, with large storage area for things like steel cabinets full of TTL gates and benches for all my projects... that would be okay.
I mean, when something is 'clean' in the way humans usually mean it, they mean a sterile lifeless environment.
I would prefer, instead, an all-natural environment in which there are appropriate symbiotic 'cleaners' that nothing is ever perceived as 'dirty.' That means there would be a natural lake to swim and stay clean in, and that the entire house, as far as possible, would be filled with living things. Clean air from all the plants. The sorts of insects around that there wouldn't be any 'pests' because 'pests' indicate an imbalance.
It's really time for a realignment, and for people to stop thinking of the 'death' kind of 'clean' as being the only kind, and the ideal kind of clean.
The convergence of Internet and Advertising is evil.
However, some of the loudest voices on slashdot these days are people who make a lot of money directly or indirectly due to advertising on the Internet. It isn't the old days anymore. . .
Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh
on
Gauging Google's Gaffes
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, Google bought and monopolize huge Usenet archive that goes back years and years. So it would such if google dried up and died. Actually, since they're really keen on all kinds of other publishers 'giving it up for the public good' they should do as well. I would think a ten volume DVD-ROM set would probably cover the Usenet archive (minus binaries) up 'til about 1998 or so... So google should release that, to anybody who wants to buy a copy. At a reasonable 'people friendly' price... What does a Ten DVD box set cost at WalMart again???
Actually, cigarettes do help people. It is pleasurable to smoke a cigarette and it relieves stress.
Don't believe the bullshit from the anti-tobacco movement that the only reason anybody smokes is 'because they are addicted.' Smoking is a pleasurable practice, at least it is for some people some of the time.
Also, don't do anything, i.e. smoke tobbacco, to excess.
100 years ago what corporation would have wanted to fund some patent clerk who didn't even do any experiments and just wanted to think about the nature of light?
Yet, strangely enough, said scientist was able to develop his theories, without Big Government coming in with a bureacracy and a whole civil service full of deadwood staffers and all the associated paperwork.
No, you've cited an example that just doesn't hash with the idea of huge government funded boondoogle initiatives.
A 'friend of a friend' once assembled an entire Heathkit Color Television in the late 1960's using 'liquid solder' instead of regular metal solder. The 'solder' connections all looked shiny and bright and perfect to the naked eye, nobody could figure out why the TV set was completely non-functional until the fool explained what he had done.
My points are already made, so it's just candy for me to settle down to some justified namecalling.
Translation: Your ideology is well established, so well established that you can sit comfortably in your armchair and eat candy while making pronouncements.
You snap over from 'wanting to save the world from coming to an end' to cynical sarcasm pretty fast. Are you sure you're not just one of the regular trolls around here?
Slashdot Mirror
"Vista's Not Done Til' Photoshop Won't Run"
That says it all, one would think.
There are really two possible meanings for "television is worse now." One is that there used to be more shows on worth watching. The other is that shows were "better".
The third possible meaning is that all the really awful programming from that era, and there was a LOT, either was never recorded or nobody bothers to take it out of the vault. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to hearken back to the 'good old times' while forgetting that 'the good old times' the way we remember it consists of the rare examples of good television programming back then that were worth saving.
This discovery also provides a compelling argument for preservation efforts in Southeast Asia.
I would say definitely this does not provide such an arguement at all.
Obviously, these animals have done fine without scientists meddling around in their habitat. I read an article (possibly the linked article) about these animals a few days ago, and the scientists were 'eager' to trap a few live.
Uh... I guess they'll need 'further funding' for the effort as well, we can figure.
Habitat preservation is a serious issue, and I am not going to pretend it isn't important. But let's be real, the animals did fine without it up to this point, so this is hardly an instance where the evidence shows a 'compelling arguement.' It's just a newly discovered species.
Ummm, you're an undergrad in college, aren't you?
(hint: you'll grow out of it. just try to keep alive in the meantime)
The old industrialist model of software development is to have rows and rows of programmers sitting in cubicles, each working on one small part of the whole.
You are talking complete nonsense. There is no 'old industrialist' model of software development. The 'old' software was developed largely the same way as much is today. WordStar wasn't written by a huge team, neither was VisiCalc. There may be a 'middle period' characterized by Microsoft and Oracle and some other entities, where they tried to 'jam mass labor' at a project, but most of what comes from the process is one-time messes that are scrapped and rewritten for each major release.
The 'Old Industrialist' model that you badly parody in your comments was already dead or dying before there was any mainstream 'computing' going on beyond the old 'Data Processing' beehive operations that dominated the early 'computer' field.
MIT gets a lot more geek-worship than is warranted, to be honest. Historically, MIT has missed the boat on some of the significant technical innovations of the last century. The Transistor, for instance. MIT was mired in a nickel plated vacuum tube world while folks elsewhere were developing the transistor. MIT in many regards is a profoundly conservative institution. Full of the credential-bound, and churning out the conformist minds who keep corporate cubicles full.
So if someone forks the code and produces a version that does this, Mozilla would be thrown out of the 'Google services' operation and lose the funding??
I'm just asking because if it hasn't already happened, it will.
dumbed down interface, no built-in composer. Fewer options in the preferences menu.
more shiney-plastic interface croft. more 'skinnable' etc. etc.
Somebody should fork the code and make a version that makes the Mozilla Foundation twice as much money from Google.
It would have to initiate random Google Searches, then autoclick ads on the Google page.
It could probably be done nicely in a plug-in without even requiring a code fork.
So who's for coding this 'suck google green' plugin? Anybody got a little spare time? You wouldn't be 'working for free' if you think of harvesting some googlebucks for Mozilla (that otherwise would go to the admen who Google is mostly made up of these days) is a good thing.
Skype doesn't work as well with AMD CPUs as it does with Intel CPUs and it was deliberately engineered to not work as well with AMD CPUs.
I think you meant to say 'it was not deliberately engineered to work as well with AMD cpus.'
Software optimization is often carried out to tune a piece of software to the dominant processor.
And yes, I'm sure this was probably the topic of a huge ill-informed flamefest here on slashdot sometime in the past that I was lucky to miss.
For long-time Mozilla suite users like me, 'having FireFox' seems like an irrelevant distraction. Sort of the AOL of Mozilla browsers.
(mark this flamebait. Firefox twinkies WILL flame it)
No, actually transparency is crucial to unethical behavior. What I mean is that if everybody behaved ethically, there would be no need for transparency. People could, uh... mind their own business if we all were totally ethical.
If the world were as you describe it, nobody could ever be trusted about anything, for any reason. In your world the only way people could be expected to be civil to one another is if some overbearing force watching over them would come down on them if they didn't remain civil.
That isn't how the world works. It isn't how the world has ever worked. There are degrees of transparency and opaqueness and it isn't a bad thing.
Get a dog. Dogs are great 'automatic cat vomit cleaners' if properly trained.
You can even use dogs to clean litter boxes, as long as you get a breed of dog that doesn't belch excessively.
You don't have to be a 'serious audiophile' to know that Bose speakers are a ripoff. You can just be someone who knows enough about tech and sound and audio to know there are cheaper alternatives that are superior.
Buying Bose gear is just stupid. It can't be expressed more succintly than that.
I would like to live in a house where there was not a single right angle in the entire structure.
Naw. I will never 'outgrow' this place. I could use a few big outbuildings, but the land is out back there for me to build them on. So I will, when the money is available. I will certainly NEVER outgrow this basic house.
A sealed and environmentally controlled second building for my tech and toys, with large storage area for things like steel cabinets full of TTL gates and benches for all my projects... that would be okay.
'Clean' = 'sterile' = 'death'
I mean, when something is 'clean' in the way humans usually mean it, they mean a sterile lifeless environment.
I would prefer, instead, an all-natural environment in which there are appropriate symbiotic 'cleaners' that nothing is ever perceived as 'dirty.' That means there would be a natural lake to swim and stay clean in, and that the entire house, as far as possible, would be filled with living things. Clean air from all the plants. The sorts of insects around that there wouldn't be any 'pests' because 'pests' indicate an imbalance.
It's really time for a realignment, and for people to stop thinking of the 'death' kind of 'clean' as being the only kind, and the ideal kind of clean.
Webmail, online chat, online calendars, maps and homepages are google innovations????
They cannot.
The convergence of Internet and Advertising is evil.
However, some of the loudest voices on slashdot these days are people who make a lot of money directly or indirectly due to advertising on the Internet. It isn't the old days anymore. . .
Well, Google bought and monopolize huge Usenet archive that goes back years and years. So it would such if google dried up and died. Actually, since they're really keen on all kinds of other publishers 'giving it up for the public good' they should do as well. I would think a ten volume DVD-ROM set would probably cover the Usenet archive (minus binaries) up 'til about 1998 or so... So google should release that, to anybody who wants to buy a copy. At a reasonable 'people friendly' price... What does a Ten DVD box set cost at WalMart again???
Actually, cigarettes do help people. It is pleasurable to smoke a cigarette and it relieves stress.
Don't believe the bullshit from the anti-tobacco movement that the only reason anybody smokes is 'because they are addicted.' Smoking is a pleasurable practice, at least it is for some people some of the time.
Also, don't do anything, i.e. smoke tobbacco, to excess.
100 years ago what corporation would have wanted to fund some patent clerk who didn't even do any experiments and just wanted to think about the nature of light?
Yet, strangely enough, said scientist was able to develop his theories, without Big Government coming in with a bureacracy and a whole civil service full of deadwood staffers and all the associated paperwork.
No, you've cited an example that just doesn't hash with the idea of huge government funded boondoogle initiatives.
A 'friend of a friend' once assembled an entire Heathkit Color Television in the late 1960's using 'liquid solder' instead of regular metal solder. The 'solder' connections all looked shiny and bright and perfect to the naked eye, nobody could figure out why the TV set was completely non-functional until the fool explained what he had done.
My points are already made, so it's just candy for me to settle down to some justified namecalling.
Translation: Your ideology is well established, so well established that you can sit comfortably in your armchair and eat candy while making pronouncements.
Get out more, guy. There's a world out there.
You snap over from 'wanting to save the world from coming to an end' to cynical sarcasm pretty fast. Are you sure you're not just one of the regular trolls around here?