Accept headers are going to tell me what CSS bugs are present?
177 karma · joined January 5, 2010
That it can be done doesn't mean it isn't complex. It is.
And by "stability" I didn't mean the phone/tablet constantly crashing, I meant having inconsistent performance. Once you get into multitasking, everyone and their brother is going to have some really "good" reason they need a service. Some of these will always perform well, some wont.
>Multitasking is useful because humans are multitasking.
Humans are incredibly awful at multitasking.
>Single tasking computers are pretty much done for, multi tasking is the norm, not the exception.
Computers sure. But this is an instant-on consumer device. I think the use cases for such a device are different enough to warrant at least consideration for a different kind of OS for them.
No, but that's a horrible way of communicating. I can't image a future where people have complex programs to decode pictures and re-encode them to post to innocent looking sites. Plus, how are average people going to get these programs in the first place without being busted?
I think a better method might be to create a big complex MMO that everyone plays that happens to have a news forum inside it somewhere. Then the data doesn't have to be encrypted per se, but it would be harder to see from outside and wouldn't be complex for users to participate in.
>Also, banning cryptography will mean that online banking, VPN access, ssh, remote desktop, etc., etc. will no longer be possible. So I doubt this will ever happen.
I wouldn't have to become impossible, it would simply have to be changed in such a way that the government can always see all communications.
As I say, I hope you're right, but as a programmer with a background in network engineering I don't see anything (outside of P2P) that couldn't easily be stopped.
Exactly. I wish more free market advocates understood this.
Personally I think the only solution will be peer-to-peer devices [1], but we couldn't do that with software only as the phone companies have already shown they couldn't be trusted for something like this [2].
[1] If you're familiar with the "one laptop per child" project then you can see what I mean. Every device will peer up with any devices it can see, so your network is simply all your peers plus all their peers (recursive). This can be attacked too, but it lacks the single point of failure that our current ISP oriented networks have.
[2] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/wsj-nokia-and-sieme...
Is that really so bad? Probably one of the first things you would do is blog about how great it is to retire. Other star programmers will see this and all line up to work at this company.
Plus, if star programmers could break out of the rat race they probably wouldn't stop programming. They would just (as you say) work on things that interest them. Think of the best free software projects and imagine if those guys didn't have to work for a living. What else could they (and others like them that haven't had the time to build things yet) build? If they build something that helps the industry then it helps the business they were working for (e.g. lowering the costs to do whatever the new software does).
The pilgrims "discovered" land people were already living in. Does it occur to you that the country you live in might wish to paint themselves to be victims (or even noble!) regardless of what really happened?
>the godless heathens where stealing and raping women
Good thing it's so black and white! It would be less convenient if awful things were happening from both sides. Then it wouldn't be so obvious which side was good and which side was evil.
Don't get me wrong; I love my mac book pro, my smart phone, playing silly RPG games, watching movies and so on.
I'm simply not prepared to claim that having these things makes me superior to other ways of life. It's different, but it's hard to say superior when a pie chart of how my life is spent would be made up mostly of work and sleep.
>It's based largely on personal memory of a lot of the things said during the lead-up to the invasion. "Beacon of democracy" was used several times in his press releases to drum up support for the war. The "domino theory" of liberalization was discussed in my International Relations course. In both the Bush and Kerry campaigns, there were widespread discussions about how to "win the peace".
I would recommend to you the BBC film "The power of nightmares". I do believe actual terrorists are responsible for 9/11, but I think nearly everything else we've seen or heard (Al Quieda and so on) is very much exaggerated or lied about (I don't buy this "we need a beacon of freedom" at all). As far as I can tell, the biggest thing that has actually happened from the Iraq war is a lot of tax payer money being transfered into the pockets of companies owned by people in Bush's staff.
History doesn't support my conclusion? We invaded some else's land and nearly wiped them out. Now what remains are spread out on reservations, little crops of land that had no value to us. You assertion that "Both where right and both were wrong" is nonsense. If some other country invaded the US today and started having that kind of "success" would you feel the same? American citizens would just be the losers in a bitter battle between two cultures? Somehow I don't think so.
>The grandparent post is right, society has congealed into functional and dysfunctional land masses.
No, you and the GGP both confuse what we have now for success. We don't have "functional and dysfunctional land masses", we have the land of the empires who were always conquering and the land of those who weren't as aggressive. As is usually the case; the first one to strike wins. That doesn't mean he is better or has more potential, just that he won. We can't know what would have happened otherwise. Perhaps we've ended up in the best situation we could have, or perhaps we could have reached a much higher level of enlightenment.
There is no way to know, but I find the framing of what happened as the best possible outcome (and by extension, everything that was done was correct) arrogant.
>...Your reaction would be, "Well, that's about as much detail as is relevant, sure"?
No. In that case, they are making a blanket statement that all humans were peaceful, etc. In this case I was suggestion that the native Americans who were here before us were not necessarily inferior or incompetent. I think that statement stands for most any specific native American group, if not all.
>Yes, I certainly do have an axe to grind, and it is this: history is rich, and amazing, and valuable, and I wish it to be taught and revered, and not swept under the Rug Of Oversimplification with statements like, "the Roman Empire was grand", and "native Americans were beautiful".
Fair enough, but comments get long enough on their own without having to completely qualify every part of every point ever made.
>Some were cruel to their captives and in times of war; others were not.
What bearing does this have on anything? Most of the bad things we hear about were learned from someone else (e.g. scalping from the French).
>Some wanted to expand their territory and conquer lands and other tribes,
There was in-fighting between certain groups, but obviously none had the same appetite we did.
>If you have any love at all for history, stop referring to all those pre-colonial nations under a single name and title.
You seem to have an axe to grind. In normal usage, one provides as much detail as is relevant. If I were talking about people of earth in relation to some other alien race I would most likely say "humans" unless there was a real reason to be more specific.
"I should probably mention that much of the reasoning behind the Bush invasion of Iraq was along these lines."
This statement seems extraordinarily naive to me. What is it based on?
Do you think IQ is something fixed? That you can't continue learning and getting smarter?