Proactively blocking their every move because they might do something dumb does not turn them into responsible adults.
Ah, the old "prison doesn't reform anyone" argument. Putting criminals in jail removes them from society, making it safer for the non-criminals. Same thing goes for this story.
You obviously don't have teenaged children. But thanks for your unqualified parental advice. I was probably one of the most responsible teens growing up, yet I did stuff that is just flat out stupid (racing cars being at the top of the list). I ran with the "valedictorian" crowd, and those "upstanding" kids were just as stoopid as other teenagers when it came to being "responsible".
Congrats. I've always been a cautious and good driver (I race as a hobby, but putter along when in non-racer traffic). I got probably 10 tickets as a teenager, only because I was a teenager. I don't think a single one of them were for more than 5 miles an hour over the speed limit (33 in a 30 being the most laughable). I got pulled over and ticketed for looking 16 and going with the flow of traffic. I'm 39 now, and haven't had a single ticket since my early 20s, even though my driving style hasn't changed.
How dumb do they think teenagers are?
Hardhack: take said Jamming key to local Hardware store and have a copy made.
Well if any teen thinks they can just have a key cut at a hardware store for any of my cars, I'd say they are pretty dumb (or naive, more like it). My cars have electronic components matched to the key and ignition that hardware stores can't make keys for.
Better yet, let's put breathalyzers in all cars to prevent all drunk driving.
As soon as I see nearly every damned person on the road driving drunk, as I do with people driving and talking on their cell phones, then I'll support your snarky comment.
+5 "Best Post Ever". I was riding with a business person recently who decided he had to respond to his blackberry, so the OTHER business guy steered for him from the passenger seat! Seriously, put your crackberry down or hire a driver...assholes.
Nope. Unlicensed jamming of cellphone service is a violation of FCC regs. Having a license to jam makes jamming no longer illegal. I did it for 12 years in the Army...good times!
If teens aren't smart enough to not use a cell phone from driving, maybe they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
I agree. However, the problem is SO prevalent (disproportionate to other societal woes) that something HAS to be done. Raising the driving age to 18 would be a start (or limiting teen driving to and from work/school only).
You do realize that single-car highway accidents are a much greater danger than bumper-to-bumper fender-benders, don't you? So when you hit that deer at 55 or that stalled car on the side of the road and flip your (I'm gonna guess, SUV) car into the ditch and die, at least the person you are talking to will get to hear it!
Excellent points! I particularly like the first line:
I bet statistically there are more accidents with people who had their car radio on while driving than there are with people using cell phones while driving.
That's because most people drive with the radio on, but ONLY IDIOTS use cell phones while driving. Since there are far more people driving with radios on than talking on cell phones, OF COURSE there are more accidents with people who had the radio on.
Actually you are wrong...there are studies. They show that most humans can address to stimuli at once. Listening to a radio and driving a car occupy two (hearing and seeing), but talking on a phone adds a third (speaking, and listening, which is different than hearing). This is why people crash cars when trying to talk on the phone and drive a giant SUV (and the fact that most of them are using one hand to hold the phone), but they usually don't crash when listening to the hits of the 80s, 90s, and beyond!
The other problem with your logic is that other forms of distracted driving don't always lead to dangerous interaction with other vehicles on the road. Somebody yelling at their kid in the back seat is more likely to just sit and block traffic, whereas an idiot on their cell phone just cuts you off or fails to yield because they are clueless to their surroundings--a far more dangerous scenario. Also, these idiots on their phones are on their phones for a LONG time, increasing the odds of a wreck. I can eat a hamburger in a minute (and keep both hands on the wheel while chewing). I can yell at my kid in two seconds flat and never take my eyes off the road. I can glance at scenery 42,000 times in one trip and still not be as distracted as one 5-minute phone call.
Umm, I'm not in control of 99.99% of teens in the world who's parents DO buy them cars and cell phones. I'm more likely to be killed by one of their kids' bad driving than the two kids in the world I am in control of.
Most of you are complaining that this is picking on teens, but why? Every teen I see driving is talking on the phone or texting. I see maybe one or two adults per trip that do this...not every single one of them.
A better solution is to ban cell phones altogether for EVERYONE while driving. Some of you are idiotic in your claims that you HAVE to have a cell phone for emergencies. Please, kind slashdotters, tell me what emergency can happen while you are physically controlling a vehicle. If you have an emergency, stop your vehicle and make a call. Is that really hard to undertsand? What kind of milk your wife wants you to pick up from the store is NOT an emergency.
Enforcement would be easy as well. A cop can drive around and spend an entire shift giving out tickets for texting/talking while driving (driving while distracted is a better term, to get those idiots who couldn't get up 5 minutes earlier to shave or put on makeup before going to work). For teens, I say you get a first time $500 ticket (parents won't like that!) and then a second ticket would suspend your license for two years. Adults would just pay out the nose for each offense...say $500 first offense, $1000 the next, $1500 for the third... $50 seat-belt violations don't work because $50 is NOTHING to most people, and it doesn't go on your insurance, so driving while distracted would have to have some real financial pain.
As a manager of code-monkeys, I'll take a half-assed programmer with social skills over an uber-programmer any day. Unless, of course, you can find me an uber-programmer with social skills (good luck with that). It may not be any better for the company, but at the end of the day, I like the people I work with, and we are all more productive for it.
You word nazis suck. There is nothing more elitist than picking on people who use the word irregardless. It's in the dictionary meaning, "regardless" and is a blend of "regardless" and "irrespective". The only caveat is that it is considered to be "incorrect" by "careful" users of English--elitist jackasses on slashdot who think they are smarter than everyone else.
As for color labels, I've never understood the use. Why would I need a color to identify a file?
Since you can sort by color, and assign whatever meaning you want to each color, the user gains the ability to sort based on user-defined criteria, as opposed to being limited to the default options. If red means "not started", yellow "in progress", and green means "finished" you now have the ability to sort by completion status, or visual quality, or degree of interest, or... When I was developing tests that used audio cuts, I would often have to preview hundreds of cuts a day to find source material that could be used in the lesson plan AND a similar/matching cut for the test. Color coding would have saved us tons of time. Instead we had to setup a bunch of different folders and move files all around and we lost the ability to sort cuts the way we would have liked. We also could have color coded cuts to assign to different developers to go through after an initial scrub.
except that every other OS at least has the option. Also, the steps you just went through don't do what I'm asking.
Not only does this do what you are asking (sort alphabetically, and put files before folders, or folders before files), it also does what WinXP doesn't...it gives you the option to list everything in a directory alphabetically (regardless if its a file or a folder) OR to list everything in a directory alphabetically with files first followed by folders. OSX is MORE flexible in this manner. Please explain how this doesn't do what you are asking? I'm not at home right now, so I can't double check, but I'm pretty sure the steps I describe are accurate.
Have you not used Windows in the last 5 years?
Hey, that's a pleasant surprise! I guess I haven't worked with my audio cuts (labeled "01-99") in a few years, because that's when I discovered this pain. Seems to be gone now. Still doesn't fix the "can't rename an open file" problem, which is by far the most egregious interruption of work flow today. Nor does it fix the problem of not reordering lists without having to "refresh" (annoying, but not a show-stopper).
I don't get your complaint. If you are sorting by name, why would you want folders before files? By definition, you are sorting that directory based on the name of the contents, not whether it's a folder or a file. To do what you are asking you sort by type. It seems you are applying XP logic or user bias towards OSX, as you can do what you are trying, but aren't doing it right.
"Folder" is a type and it is different than "File". When you sort by type, folders sort separately from files, and they do so alphabetically. Click the black triangle to reverse the sort order. That way you get an alphabetical sort, with folders being separate from files. So you can have it both ways, whereas in Windows, you only get a sorted alphabetical list with files first then folders. At least in OSX you get that "option" that you are seeking.
Even though I don't get your complaint at all, there are far worse abuses in Windows. Try renaming a file that is open...sorry, can't do it. How about sorting numerically? Windows thinks 10 comes before 1, so you have to label your files 01-09 in order to sort the way humans work. Color labels (assigned by the user, and sortable) in Windows? Nope. Add a new file in OSX and it goes in the list where it fits, not the bottom like Windows. What's a "refresh" key?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, most programmers, like most people, are just cogs in the machine. It's sad, but that is just reality.
Why is it sad? They are being paid for their skill-set, which is to create the code that is the foundation of the machine.
I'm more interested in the top .1% or so
These people shouldn't be working for anyone but themselves.
Proactively blocking their every move because they might do something dumb does not turn them into responsible adults.
Ah, the old "prison doesn't reform anyone" argument. Putting criminals in jail removes them from society, making it safer for the non-criminals. Same thing goes for this story.
You obviously don't have teenaged children. But thanks for your unqualified parental advice. I was probably one of the most responsible teens growing up, yet I did stuff that is just flat out stupid (racing cars being at the top of the list). I ran with the "valedictorian" crowd, and those "upstanding" kids were just as stoopid as other teenagers when it came to being "responsible".
- My teenage years were ticket-free.
Congrats. I've always been a cautious and good driver (I race as a hobby, but putter along when in non-racer traffic). I got probably 10 tickets as a teenager, only because I was a teenager. I don't think a single one of them were for more than 5 miles an hour over the speed limit (33 in a 30 being the most laughable). I got pulled over and ticketed for looking 16 and going with the flow of traffic. I'm 39 now, and haven't had a single ticket since my early 20s, even though my driving style hasn't changed.
How dumb do they think teenagers are? Hardhack: take said Jamming key to local Hardware store and have a copy made.
Well if any teen thinks they can just have a key cut at a hardware store for any of my cars, I'd say they are pretty dumb (or naive, more like it). My cars have electronic components matched to the key and ignition that hardware stores can't make keys for.
Better yet, let's put breathalyzers in all cars to prevent all drunk driving.
As soon as I see nearly every damned person on the road driving drunk, as I do with people driving and talking on their cell phones, then I'll support your snarky comment.
+5 "Best Post Ever". I was riding with a business person recently who decided he had to respond to his blackberry, so the OTHER business guy steered for him from the passenger seat! Seriously, put your crackberry down or hire a driver...assholes.
Nope. Unlicensed jamming of cellphone service is a violation of FCC regs. Having a license to jam makes jamming no longer illegal. I did it for 12 years in the Army...good times!
I haven't owned a car in 10-years that can just have a key "cut". They've all had some sort of electronics that your local Wal-Mart can't do.
Nope. Unlicensed jamming is a federal crime. I jammed signals for 12 years in the military...not a crime at all.
If teens aren't smart enough to not use a cell phone from driving, maybe they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
I agree. However, the problem is SO prevalent (disproportionate to other societal woes) that something HAS to be done. Raising the driving age to 18 would be a start (or limiting teen driving to and from work/school only).
You do realize that single-car highway accidents are a much greater danger than bumper-to-bumper fender-benders, don't you? So when you hit that deer at 55 or that stalled car on the side of the road and flip your (I'm gonna guess, SUV) car into the ditch and die, at least the person you are talking to will get to hear it!
"Just wait until the first death..." So you die from shock if you can't figure out how to use your cell phone after an accident?
I bet statistically there are more accidents with people who had their car radio on while driving than there are with people using cell phones while driving.
That's because most people drive with the radio on, but ONLY IDIOTS use cell phones while driving. Since there are far more people driving with radios on than talking on cell phones, OF COURSE there are more accidents with people who had the radio on.
Actually you are wrong...there are studies. They show that most humans can address to stimuli at once. Listening to a radio and driving a car occupy two (hearing and seeing), but talking on a phone adds a third (speaking, and listening, which is different than hearing). This is why people crash cars when trying to talk on the phone and drive a giant SUV (and the fact that most of them are using one hand to hold the phone), but they usually don't crash when listening to the hits of the 80s, 90s, and beyond!
The other problem with your logic is that other forms of distracted driving don't always lead to dangerous interaction with other vehicles on the road. Somebody yelling at their kid in the back seat is more likely to just sit and block traffic, whereas an idiot on their cell phone just cuts you off or fails to yield because they are clueless to their surroundings--a far more dangerous scenario. Also, these idiots on their phones are on their phones for a LONG time, increasing the odds of a wreck. I can eat a hamburger in a minute (and keep both hands on the wheel while chewing). I can yell at my kid in two seconds flat and never take my eyes off the road. I can glance at scenery 42,000 times in one trip and still not be as distracted as one 5-minute phone call.
Umm, I'm not in control of 99.99% of teens in the world who's parents DO buy them cars and cell phones. I'm more likely to be killed by one of their kids' bad driving than the two kids in the world I am in control of.
Most of you are complaining that this is picking on teens, but why? Every teen I see driving is talking on the phone or texting. I see maybe one or two adults per trip that do this...not every single one of them.
A better solution is to ban cell phones altogether for EVERYONE while driving. Some of you are idiotic in your claims that you HAVE to have a cell phone for emergencies. Please, kind slashdotters, tell me what emergency can happen while you are physically controlling a vehicle. If you have an emergency, stop your vehicle and make a call. Is that really hard to undertsand? What kind of milk your wife wants you to pick up from the store is NOT an emergency.
Enforcement would be easy as well. A cop can drive around and spend an entire shift giving out tickets for texting/talking while driving (driving while distracted is a better term, to get those idiots who couldn't get up 5 minutes earlier to shave or put on makeup before going to work). For teens, I say you get a first time $500 ticket (parents won't like that!) and then a second ticket would suspend your license for two years. Adults would just pay out the nose for each offense...say $500 first offense, $1000 the next, $1500 for the third... $50 seat-belt violations don't work because $50 is NOTHING to most people, and it doesn't go on your insurance, so driving while distracted would have to have some real financial pain.
As for #3, I find it impossible to say anything to a programmer without them thinking you are patronizing them ;-)
As a manager of code-monkeys, I'll take a half-assed programmer with social skills over an uber-programmer any day. Unless, of course, you can find me an uber-programmer with social skills (good luck with that). It may not be any better for the company, but at the end of the day, I like the people I work with, and we are all more productive for it.
I'm just curious...do you think programmers are anything BUT cogs in the machine? To me, they seem to be the foundation OF the machine.
You word nazis suck. There is nothing more elitist than picking on people who use the word irregardless. It's in the dictionary meaning, "regardless" and is a blend of "regardless" and "irrespective". The only caveat is that it is considered to be "incorrect" by "careful" users of English--elitist jackasses on slashdot who think they are smarter than everyone else.
As for color labels, I've never understood the use. Why would I need a color to identify a file?
Since you can sort by color, and assign whatever meaning you want to each color, the user gains the ability to sort based on user-defined criteria, as opposed to being limited to the default options. If red means "not started", yellow "in progress", and green means "finished" you now have the ability to sort by completion status, or visual quality, or degree of interest, or... When I was developing tests that used audio cuts, I would often have to preview hundreds of cuts a day to find source material that could be used in the lesson plan AND a similar/matching cut for the test. Color coding would have saved us tons of time. Instead we had to setup a bunch of different folders and move files all around and we lost the ability to sort cuts the way we would have liked. We also could have color coded cuts to assign to different developers to go through after an initial scrub.
except that every other OS at least has the option. Also, the steps you just went through don't do what I'm asking.
Not only does this do what you are asking (sort alphabetically, and put files before folders, or folders before files), it also does what WinXP doesn't...it gives you the option to list everything in a directory alphabetically (regardless if its a file or a folder) OR to list everything in a directory alphabetically with files first followed by folders. OSX is MORE flexible in this manner. Please explain how this doesn't do what you are asking? I'm not at home right now, so I can't double check, but I'm pretty sure the steps I describe are accurate.
Have you not used Windows in the last 5 years?
Hey, that's a pleasant surprise! I guess I haven't worked with my audio cuts (labeled "01-99") in a few years, because that's when I discovered this pain. Seems to be gone now. Still doesn't fix the "can't rename an open file" problem, which is by far the most egregious interruption of work flow today. Nor does it fix the problem of not reordering lists without having to "refresh" (annoying, but not a show-stopper).
I don't get your complaint. If you are sorting by name, why would you want folders before files? By definition, you are sorting that directory based on the name of the contents, not whether it's a folder or a file. To do what you are asking you sort by type. It seems you are applying XP logic or user bias towards OSX, as you can do what you are trying, but aren't doing it right.
"Folder" is a type and it is different than "File". When you sort by type, folders sort separately from files, and they do so alphabetically. Click the black triangle to reverse the sort order. That way you get an alphabetical sort, with folders being separate from files. So you can have it both ways, whereas in Windows, you only get a sorted alphabetical list with files first then folders. At least in OSX you get that "option" that you are seeking.
Even though I don't get your complaint at all, there are far worse abuses in Windows. Try renaming a file that is open...sorry, can't do it. How about sorting numerically? Windows thinks 10 comes before 1, so you have to label your files 01-09 in order to sort the way humans work. Color labels (assigned by the user, and sortable) in Windows? Nope. Add a new file in OSX and it goes in the list where it fits, not the bottom like Windows. What's a "refresh" key?
Ah, ok. Good, then my original point is validated! Whomever is appointed is still pretty much a non-issue.
FTA: Modern computers are designed to handle 40,000 on/off cycles before failure
With all the reboots required, that means I am limited to three Vista reinstalls?