Women typically enter puberty with hundreds of thousands of follicles, but thousands die each menstrual cycle. If we can figure out a way to not kill the person, I'm sure we can figure out a way to not kill the follicles, which means she'd have hundreds of thousands of months of fertility.
This won't stop the menopause from happening, and the urge to reproduce is one of the most basic animal urges that exists.
Really? Why not? Ending menopause seems like child's play compared to the rest of it. If you chose to extend your life, you might just as well choose to extend your fertility.
This isn't technical literature. Most people are saying "mean" when they say "average". That's because, for most people (at least, most Americans, I know math education is better in other countries) "mean" is the only kind of average they have learned.
This is not trivial, and should not be dismissed. In a given context, we can agree on what the word "average" means. Refusing to agree on it is just an artificial barrier to discussion.
Reality is both points of view are basically bullshit.
Microsoft's slow migration to IE7 is because Microsoft designed things this way. They built IE6 in so that people couldn't switch and never would have to think about browsers. I'm not sure they even care how many migrate to the newer browser, as long as people keep buying the OS underneath it. (The likelihood that vista adoption should be, but isn't, driving adoption of IE7 is a separate problem, and not one with IE specifically.)
Firefox's rapid adoption is--tada--also because Mozilla designed things this way. The Download Day was extremely successful, and there's just been oodles of marketing to get people to switch as fast as possible, with a browser that's already designed to be portable and easy to swap in and out.
So Mozilla's getting what it asked for, and Microsoft is also getting what it asked for. I doubt alarm bells are ringing anywhere.
I suspect this has more to do with dependencies than loss of features. It's easy to take an ancient project and lose lots and lots of code, usually because the old one does everything by itself and the new one brings in externally maintained libraries and frameworks. NIH doesn't even apply--if the project is old enough, Inventing it Here may have been the only option.
The rest of the difference can be made up by better coders and better coding techniques and technologies. Most rewrites produce better, smaller, faster code, this is just an extreme example.
It occurs to me that this debate has lots of comparisons with the current minor furor over the rise of multiple CPUs. Many in the programming industry are despairing because we are being forced to design software that runs on multiple CPUs at once, rather than just getting more CPU speed. And again, it's due to externally imposed constraints. In the automobile industry, the catalytic converter was that constraint, in the lead electronics debate, the RoHS is that external constraint.
In the programming world, I expect things to be resolved the same way: by superior engineering, taking advantage of the mountains of research and practical application of parallel processing designs that have been going on for decades. My favorite language Python is particularly sensitive to this debate due to something called the GIL, but solutions abound, including the newly accepted pyprocessing module or any number of things you can do with Twisted, both of which stand as examples of better, practical engineering taking advantage of known solutions to the problem.
Engineering fixes most problems that changing standards and regulations cause, eventually.
It doesn't sound at all "tame" to me, and I'm no prude:P Even if it's legal, and I concede that it could be (I haven't watched it though) I don't think "tame" would be a good word to describe it. But I'm in favor of things that are legal. I'm still morally opposed to hypocrisy, so we'll see what this does to the case.
Christ, could anyone be more self-important than Richard Stallman? There are fifty-two justifications in that FAQ about the fucking name! If you feel that insecure about something, maybe it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I agree with the GP, stop the mind control already.
Ah, but any identification they've done, secure or not, is irrelevant if the person doing the signing is at the other end of a phone connection. Hell, isn't even in voice communication with you. There's no camera pointed at their faces as they stand in front of the fax machine to make sure the faxer is the same person as the ostensible signer. You're starting over fresh, and need a whole new authentication method. The signature is supposed to be that authentication method, but it fails.
Percents don't matter as much at that point, but they matter. The market can just as easily turn back to IE at some point.. if, say, Windows 7 is amazing and IE 8 blows the doors off of Firefox. Then that market share reallly matters, because Firefox will be struggling to hold on to their position rather than growing.
And let's face it, the army fighting the good standards fight is mostly made of orange foxes. Take Firefox out, and the begrudging standards compliance we've won from Microsoft will go away too.
I think you're being a bit harsh about his solution--after all, multiplying the spam by 30x is not free to the spammer, although it may well be lower than the cost of the proposed countermeasures.
What this really points to is craigslist and others with similar business modles should be funding research into killing botnets.
IME, it's perfectly normal to ask patch contributors to re-submit patches, frequently, until they're right. The patch contributor is the one benefiting most directly from the patch, and is the one with the most knowledge about the patch, and is the one with the most motivation to fix the patch. That makes the contributor the only party who can be asked to fix the patch.
So they used some code from it, and then asked you to resubmit it built against the new codebase. This is perfectly normal and reasonable. They can't use the patch as-is when it has been mangled to death; and in the final analysis they don't really care whether it gets used, even though they did care about selected parts of it. You care whether it gets used. So you are the one who should remake the patch.
You're missing the point. The fact that it would be "easy to fix" means nothing. The fact that it wasn't done does. If a volunteer sucks at it--somebody should be being paid to do it. Mozilla's hugely profitable. They have no excuse. Good god, do you have any idea how much code is in Firefox? How many people contributing? The entire point of open source is that lots of people can do more work than a single proprietary organization. The downside, of course, is there's too much for a single organization to oversee. Shit happens. You get things fixed by asking for them to get fixed, that includes accidental omissions of credit. It should have been done, but the fact that it wasn't is not a failing of the Mozilla organization.
[..] People are busy, timely hurry-up gripes usually help prioritize things. This is irrelevant, and should be unnecessary. Yet, isn't. In the real world, people do not magically know what they have to do. They do things when asked to do them.
Our obsession with making everything small leads directly to this problem. Smaller things get lost more easily.
They sell those giant-sized remote controls at Walgreens or your local random-crap-mart. Buy one, you'll never lose it again. It can't fall between the cushions of the couch because it's friggin huge. If the thing you don't want to lose doesn't come in giant-size, permanently attach it to something which is too large to lose but still portable. Gas stations have learned this lesson, that's why the bathroom key is attached to a huge plank.
To make it even easier, paint it something bright and garish.
This isn't rocket science. The civilized people of the world know what human rights are. Don't cloud the issue by pretending there's no way to tell who's right and who's wrong here.
Google is to blame for complying with an oppressive, anti-human-rights law, just like Yahoo is. They've stood up to the American government, I'm baffled why they wouldn't stand up to the Indian government, but it makes them no less in the wrong. There are standards for human rights, no company should obey laws that violate human rights just to operate in the country where they are violated. India SHOULD be punished for having this law on the books, and the punishment should take the form of Google's refusal to obey its laws. If the Indian government tries a reprisal against Google, then the punishment should take the form of Google ceasing to do business there.
The only argument you can make against this is that it would hurt Google's bottom line, and that's no argument at all.
There's a subtext going on here, though. Hardy has not been a very clean release. A firefox 3 beta was included as the OFFICIAL release, and (at least that particular build) is one of the most unstable in my memory of Firefox. (says someone who was using it when it was still Phoenix.) Lots of crash issues, lots of problems for web developers. Ubuntu is partially to blame, because they could have packaged Firefox 2 and kept it safe; instead they gambled on Firefox 3, and so far, they are losing. Couple that with the recent openssl whammy, and Hardy is starting to stink up the joint a bit.
Now, take all that with a grain of salt: I'm running Hardy, and I'm pretty happy with it apart from needing to manually install firefox 2.
Nevertheless, Shuttleworth really wants major application developers to sync up with *him* so that e.g. Firefox 4 comes out BEFORE Ubuntu 9.04 (or whatever) rather than after. This olive branch to the other distro vendors is an attempt to manipulate that. I think it will fail just because he's trying to herd cats, but I can't blame him for trying.
Slashdot Mirror
Women typically enter puberty with hundreds of thousands of follicles, but thousands die each menstrual cycle. If we can figure out a way to not kill the person, I'm sure we can figure out a way to not kill the follicles, which means she'd have hundreds of thousands of months of fertility.
This won't stop the menopause from happening, and the urge to reproduce is one of the most basic animal urges that exists.
Really? Why not? Ending menopause seems like child's play compared to the rest of it. If you chose to extend your life, you might just as well choose to extend your fertility.
die of nothing? I'm not even sure how to respond to that.
Good thing this isn't "ask Dogun". Maybe Dr. de Grey will know how to respond to it.
Man, you guys really don't know about Alterslash yet?
This isn't technical literature. Most people are saying "mean" when they say "average". That's because, for most people (at least, most Americans, I know math education is better in other countries) "mean" is the only kind of average they have learned.
This is not trivial, and should not be dismissed. In a given context, we can agree on what the word "average" means. Refusing to agree on it is just an artificial barrier to discussion.
It changes to the channel which has the most shows on it.
Reality is both points of view are basically bullshit.
Microsoft's slow migration to IE7 is because Microsoft designed things this way. They built IE6 in so that people couldn't switch and never would have to think about browsers. I'm not sure they even care how many migrate to the newer browser, as long as people keep buying the OS underneath it. (The likelihood that vista adoption should be, but isn't, driving adoption of IE7 is a separate problem, and not one with IE specifically.)
Firefox's rapid adoption is--tada--also because Mozilla designed things this way. The Download Day was extremely successful, and there's just been oodles of marketing to get people to switch as fast as possible, with a browser that's already designed to be portable and easy to swap in and out.
So Mozilla's getting what it asked for, and Microsoft is also getting what it asked for. I doubt alarm bells are ringing anywhere.
I suspect this has more to do with dependencies than loss of features. It's easy to take an ancient project and lose lots and lots of code, usually because the old one does everything by itself and the new one brings in externally maintained libraries and frameworks. NIH doesn't even apply--if the project is old enough, Inventing it Here may have been the only option.
The rest of the difference can be made up by better coders and better coding techniques and technologies. Most rewrites produce better, smaller, faster code, this is just an extreme example.
How much does it piss you off? Does it enrage you?
Heh, it says "Jesus will save me. Failing that, Volvo will. COMIN' THROUGH!"
I think "super" in this case means "bigger", or "more", than Earth.
Or it could be a cluster of Kryptons. I for one bow before Zod, our new ruler from Super-Earth.
It occurs to me that this debate has lots of comparisons with the current minor furor over the rise of multiple CPUs. Many in the programming industry are despairing because we are being forced to design software that runs on multiple CPUs at once, rather than just getting more CPU speed. And again, it's due to externally imposed constraints. In the automobile industry, the catalytic converter was that constraint, in the lead electronics debate, the RoHS is that external constraint.
In the programming world, I expect things to be resolved the same way: by superior engineering, taking advantage of the mountains of research and practical application of parallel processing designs that have been going on for decades. My favorite language Python is particularly sensitive to this debate due to something called the GIL, but solutions abound, including the newly accepted pyprocessing module or any number of things you can do with Twisted, both of which stand as examples of better, practical engineering taking advantage of known solutions to the problem.
Engineering fixes most problems that changing standards and regulations cause, eventually.
Sucker. You clearly bought an imitation. The authentic cable has redundant transfer tubes for both 1's and 0's.
It doesn't sound at all "tame" to me, and I'm no prude :P Even if it's legal, and I concede that it could be (I haven't watched it though) I don't think "tame" would be a good word to describe it. But I'm in favor of things that are legal. I'm still morally opposed to hypocrisy, so we'll see what this does to the case.
Are you sure about that? The man cavorting sounds awfully close to bestiality, which is, in fact, illegal most places as it constitutes animal abuse.
Christ, could anyone be more self-important than Richard Stallman? There are fifty-two justifications in that FAQ about the fucking name! If you feel that insecure about something, maybe it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I agree with the GP, stop the mind control already.
Ah, but any identification they've done, secure or not, is irrelevant if the person doing the signing is at the other end of a phone connection. Hell, isn't even in voice communication with you. There's no camera pointed at their faces as they stand in front of the fax machine to make sure the faxer is the same person as the ostensible signer. You're starting over fresh, and need a whole new authentication method. The signature is supposed to be that authentication method, but it fails.
Percents don't matter as much at that point, but they matter. The market can just as easily turn back to IE at some point.. if, say, Windows 7 is amazing and IE 8 blows the doors off of Firefox. Then that market share reallly matters, because Firefox will be struggling to hold on to their position rather than growing.
And let's face it, the army fighting the good standards fight is mostly made of orange foxes. Take Firefox out, and the begrudging standards compliance we've won from Microsoft will go away too.
I think you're being a bit harsh about his solution--after all, multiplying the spam by 30x is not free to the spammer, although it may well be lower than the cost of the proposed countermeasures.
What this really points to is craigslist and others with similar business modles should be funding research into killing botnets.
IME, it's perfectly normal to ask patch contributors to re-submit patches, frequently, until they're right. The patch contributor is the one benefiting most directly from the patch, and is the one with the most knowledge about the patch, and is the one with the most motivation to fix the patch. That makes the contributor the only party who can be asked to fix the patch.
So they used some code from it, and then asked you to resubmit it built against the new codebase. This is perfectly normal and reasonable. They can't use the patch as-is when it has been mangled to death; and in the final analysis they don't really care whether it gets used, even though they did care about selected parts of it. You care whether it gets used. So you are the one who should remake the patch.
Our obsession with making everything small leads directly to this problem. Smaller things get lost more easily.
They sell those giant-sized remote controls at Walgreens or your local random-crap-mart. Buy one, you'll never lose it again. It can't fall between the cushions of the couch because it's friggin huge. If the thing you don't want to lose doesn't come in giant-size, permanently attach it to something which is too large to lose but still portable. Gas stations have learned this lesson, that's why the bathroom key is attached to a huge plank.
To make it even easier, paint it something bright and garish.
It's been pretty well defined, actually. Human Rights Declaration. See articles 5, 18, and 19.
This isn't rocket science. The civilized people of the world know what human rights are. Don't cloud the issue by pretending there's no way to tell who's right and who's wrong here.
Google is to blame for complying with an oppressive, anti-human-rights law, just like Yahoo is. They've stood up to the American government, I'm baffled why they wouldn't stand up to the Indian government, but it makes them no less in the wrong. There are standards for human rights, no company should obey laws that violate human rights just to operate in the country where they are violated. India SHOULD be punished for having this law on the books, and the punishment should take the form of Google's refusal to obey its laws. If the Indian government tries a reprisal against Google, then the punishment should take the form of Google ceasing to do business there.
The only argument you can make against this is that it would hurt Google's bottom line, and that's no argument at all.
There's a subtext going on here, though. Hardy has not been a very clean release. A firefox 3 beta was included as the OFFICIAL release, and (at least that particular build) is one of the most unstable in my memory of Firefox. (says someone who was using it when it was still Phoenix.) Lots of crash issues, lots of problems for web developers. Ubuntu is partially to blame, because they could have packaged Firefox 2 and kept it safe; instead they gambled on Firefox 3, and so far, they are losing. Couple that with the recent openssl whammy, and Hardy is starting to stink up the joint a bit.
Now, take all that with a grain of salt: I'm running Hardy, and I'm pretty happy with it apart from needing to manually install firefox 2.
Nevertheless, Shuttleworth really wants major application developers to sync up with *him* so that e.g. Firefox 4 comes out BEFORE Ubuntu 9.04 (or whatever) rather than after. This olive branch to the other distro vendors is an attempt to manipulate that. I think it will fail just because he's trying to herd cats, but I can't blame him for trying.