That defeats the entire purpose of the SI. The prefixes are fixed. They have definite meaning, and that meaning is constant through all units. All the units have the same base. Any violation of that and we might as well be using Imperial.

So no, it wouldn't 'make more sense.' The SI did the only thing they could. They adopted the units, and even went out of their way to make new prefixes to cover the binary byte use cases.
Yeah, it means a lot of old documentation is now wrong. But there's only one way forward if we want a sane system of measures.

So? They weren't SI units, but they used SI prefixes (wrongly.) Now the SI has made SI units based on the old ones that do conform. They even threw in some binary units for the times that they are actually useful. You're just pissed because it turns out people respect the SI more they do grumpy old computer geeks.

If I remember this correctly, sintering is actually one of the favoured manufacturing methods for implants. Something about how you can make the material surfaces porous enough for tissue to hold on to, which traditional machining simply cannot match.

I've no doubt that sintered parts have undergone failure testing and found acceptable. Do you know the level of regulation for a medical implant? It's insane.

Read. He says that if you can have a light emitting grid below the object of interest you could do some neat tricks with illumination.

Of course, if you could actually get pixels much smaller than a wavelength, the big application would be true holography. You aren't drawing images at that point, you're drawing interference patterns.

Or you've just stopped noticing the smell, which is the worrying theory.

I've actually stopped shampooing as well, though I also have to keep my hair buzzed short. It's the only thing I've found to reduce the oil and irritation. I'm far too aware of BO to stop using soap, though...

Arguing with several people in the same thread is annoying.

I am not arguing against the security measures that Mozilla is putting in place. Those are good! I'm arguing against the violation of one of the principles that the browser was launched on. Maybe it is "bowing to reality" but I honestly don't care about that. Stick to your guns, or what's the difference between you and google's chrome?

Because plugins can do lots of things. They might even be open source! EME implementation has only one use - adding closed source, restrictive DRM.

This is the inclusion of closed source, liberty restricting software in a product that touts its open source, free and open internet stance. Not including software that restricts your freedoms is not restricting your freedom in any way. You are free to use another program to get that closed content. You are free to write a plugin that implements EME.

And yeah, I'm still free to chop out the cruft from firefox. Yay, I guess. What's wrong about this is that Mozilla is bowing to external pressure to break its principles.

I'm kinda confused here. You say that killing a cop is a terrible idea because you get 500 police with guns coming to get you, but if the patrolman doesn't have a gun he'll get shot because he's unarmed?

It's still a bad idea to kill the cop! It's not like NONE of the police have guns, just the patrolmen. So if you shoot at that guy you're going to get taken down hard, if you just run maybe you'll get away.

A) Bullshit. There are lots of ways to deal with somebody who's got a gun.
B) Did you read what I wrote? The thought is that if your patrolmen are not armed, fewer criminals will bother with guns.

It's not that they don't trust the officers with a gun, it's that everybody knows that patrolmen don't have guns. Why spend money to get a gun when you know that you're not at risk of being shot at to start? And then why shoot at an officer who you know won't shoot at you?

The idea is that it lowers the stakes all around.

To me it matters quite a bit!

I want to see the companies who's products I use take a stand. Yeah, the big players will just work around them. So what? Is that any reason not to fight?

Hmm, what's the best way I can put this?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No. Evolution happens when offspring get mutated genes from their parents. Actually, the older an organism gets the more mutations it's likely to pass on to its offspring! But this of course misses the larger point: Evolution is not good nor bad, it just IS. There's no advancing, wonderful goal. It's just a process that happens over time. We don't need to respect it or some garbage like that. We are alive, and we can do wonderful things. The only reason people romanticize death and "living forever by passing on our ideas" is because we have no choice. We've been beaten by death for so long that we have to try and justify it to stay sane.

There is some truth to the saying that science (and everything else) advances one death at a time. Entrenched interests and viewpoints are hard to get rid of when they won't die off. On the other hand, I refuse to condemn people to death because I find their viewpoints annoying.

Either that's going to happen anyway and we should just get it over with, or it's never going to happen.

Either way it's a horrible argument. We're inventive! We're good at surviving. We'll come up with something.

The fuck are you on about?

The idea behind "one man one vote" principles is EXACTLY equality of speech. Nobody is supposed to have more or less say.
Right now the rich have far more power - hell, there was a study posted just the other week about that. You know, the metastudy that concluded that the policy records of the government correlated with the will of the top couple percent quite strongly, and with the will of everybody else quite poorly? Yeah.

The "problem" with advertising is human nature. It works on you. It works on me. The more you think it doesn't work on you the better it works! It's horrifying, but it's true. The way to deal with it is at the source.