The problem isn't that people don't understand your instructions. The problem is that they simply didn't care, or perhaps even delighted in not following your instructions.
There were certainly times when I 'passed' on certain procedures sent out by IT; especially when practically every update slowed the machine, locked it down further, or upgraded software to more bloated and less useful versions. Of course, many patches were good, such as the mentioned security patches; but users get passive-aggressive. People feel possessive over any tool they use eight hours a day, every day, and resent other people asserting control over 'their' machine. That's maybe not strictly rational, but people view it as if you came into their cubicle and rearranged their desktop.
Actionscript 3.0 is really a pretty decent language, on par with the newest versions of javascript... and DHTML/CSS doesn't come close to the power of the flash graphics API. A decent flash game, for instance, can look & play better than most Super Nintendo games; DHTML/Javascript is still pushing hard to look like an original NES. Both, of course, are hundreds of times slower than native applications.
Flash has its problems, obviously; it breaks the whole browsing paradigm. However, there's just nothing else out there right now with the same mix of capabilities; it has its niche. (Maybe java applets, but those universally suck. Maybe Silverlight could, but nobody seriously uses it.)
In fairness, nobody with any amount of knowledge expected it to have any impact. It's not really accurate to say it 'went wrong' when most of us never expected it to work in the first place.
I think there would be no shortage of volunteers. And by that, I mean, millions of volunteers, including all astronauts, and everybody that wants to be one.
I'm kind of surprised to read a poster on slashdot write they wouldn't volunteer for a one-way mission.
The Soviets did have an unsustainable system; but it wasn't pre-ordained how long they would last. There is little doubt America's actions hastened their decline by decades. That could reasonably be described as 'beating'.
The oldbar addon, while it makes the situation much better, doesn't completely fix the search and url retention problems with the awesomebar. Esthetically, it fixes the looks, but not every aspect of the behavior.
And you can always get the "oldbar" addin, to fix the "Awesomebar". It's one of the addins I always install, along with flashblock, mouse gestures, etc.
I don't have a problem with Mozilla including the awesomebar in Mozilla 3.0; I dislike how they stripped out the functionality to revert to the simpler, more rational original toolbar. 3.0 betas had configuration options to switch.
I don't quite agree. I don't think this is a case of Google having undue influence over Mozilla. Google is shutting off the service they provided. What's Mozilla supposed to do?
Now, I think Mozilla has screwed up a lot lately. Some decisions they made for the 3.0 series reek of the same corporatism force-feeding of unpopular options that we get from other big annoying software companies. But this wasn't one of them. I'm sure everybody understood Google wouldn't support that feature forever.
Very true. Although the two sides differ somewhat on what they try to censor, it's a tool all corrupt politicians love, regardless of party.
And they especially love edge cases like the Scorpions album, because it allows them to expand the breadth of censorship, while still seeming virtuous. It'll make the attempts at political censorship, later, seem like not such a stretch.
Two areas are being conflated. The PC Games industry is the one committing slow suicide. Consoles are going strong. I think the problem with PC games is that publishers are trying to be force them into the same model as consoles, and it simply doesn't fit.
Oh, I don't really disagree. I think this is a legitimate device, and kudos to the company for making it, but I don't really think medicare should be paying for it. But then, I don't really like medicare paying for _anything_. As you say, it kind of undermines the concept of rights.
Very few people seem to understand the electoral college, true. There is no national election in the United States. There are simultaneous state elections, where electors are chosen. They, at a later date, choose the president.
There are good reasons for that, and they aren't the typical canards that are trotted out about how difficult it was to coordinate an election in the 17th century. It is because of the division of powers between the Federal and State governments. I don't know if you are a United States resident or not, but most people outside of the U.S. don't really understand how independent the states are. The vast majority of Law resides at the state level, as do all elections, even for president electors. You may disagree with that, but it's not archaic in any sense, no more than the separation of the legislative/judicial/executive branches is.
Lets see. Right to bear arms. That's not archaic; it's based on principle, and that (by definition) doesn't change. The right of self-defense is as fundamental as the right of free speech or the right to be secure in your possessions. Those concepts no more become dated over time than Aristotle's rules of logic do.
Free Healthcare. Not a right. It's a misunderstanding of rights to imagine it could be. Nothing that is 'given' can be a right. A right only allows, never gives. There is no right to housing, medical care, food, or tv. Only a right to not be restricted from obtaining any of those, if you could otherwise produce or trade for them.
Loser pays court system: Yeah, you're right, we need to fix that... although I don't think that's actually a constitutional issue.
Equal access to the media: Well, everybody does have equal access to the media. You want to control the media, and regulate who and how much they can cover. That's a direct abridgment of free speech rights; see the problem with 'the right to medical care' above, for the reason.
If allowing gun ownership is a matter of ethical principle and human rights, than the "rate of gun deaths" and other such evidence is pretty much irrelevant.
If free speech cost lives, what death rate would convince us to abandon that right? 1%?
The correct answer, of course, is that the risk is irrelevant. Self defense (and free speech) is the right and perview, first and foremost, of the individual, and shouldn't be taken away based on comparative statistics.
Um... you might want to rethink that core reasoning.
The GP post was saying those deaths include GOOD gundeaths. The more violent attackers killed by guns, the BETTER. It renders a high gun-deaths figure irrelevant, because we don't know how many of those deaths were undesirable.
You're wrong; I think you're too passionate about the issue. He stated what principles anti-abortion people tend to base their stance on.
Doing so is not innately pro or anti abortion. It's just stating a fact, and is no different than explaining why most pro-choice people think that the mother should have the freedom to abort.
His point, which you missed, is that the principles that lead anti-abortionists to that conclusion simply are inapplicable to, say, the morality of warfare. Apples and oranges. Comparing the two is a rather simplistic logical error, and if you really, honestly, paid attention to _what_he_actually_said_,, you would never make that mistake again.
Well, any doctor that believes humans should have the right to defend themselves. Doctors aren't required to fix people up and send them out to be killed, defenseless.
You think most doctors wouldn't shoot somebody who was attacking them? They would. Their oath doesn't forbid that. So how hypocritical would it be for them to deny that right to one of their patients?
That's always amused me. Somebody complaining about the cognitive dissonance of being pro-gun (or pro-death penalty) and anti-abortion... who can't even see what that implies about the people with opposite stances...
Really, though, a modicum of understanding of either side will reveal that there's no contradiction; any apparent similarity between, say, abortion and war, is pretty simplistic, and overlooks the real and fundamental issues motivating both sides.
Support of anatomy, I'd presume. An infirm person may not be strong enough to fire a gun. Not being strong enough to fire a gun puts them at risk; assailants can reasonably assume that weak, disabled people are easy victims. Self-defense is a human right; bearing arms is a consitutional right, and infirmity may prevent a patient from exercising that right.
No different than a cane, or a speech synthesizer for someone who has difficulty talking.
There are a lot of young people that are crazy, too. Probably a higher percentage. I'd rather have everybody over fifty packing guns than everybody between 18-25.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't that people don't understand your instructions. The problem is that they simply didn't care, or perhaps even delighted in not following your instructions.
There were certainly times when I 'passed' on certain procedures sent out by IT; especially when practically every update slowed the machine, locked it down further, or upgraded software to more bloated and less useful versions. Of course, many patches were good, such as the mentioned security patches; but users get passive-aggressive. People feel possessive over any tool they use eight hours a day, every day, and resent other people asserting control over 'their' machine. That's maybe not strictly rational, but people view it as if you came into their cubicle and rearranged their desktop.
Actionscript 3.0 is really a pretty decent language, on par with the newest versions of javascript... and DHTML/CSS doesn't come close to the power of the flash graphics API. A decent flash game, for instance, can look & play better than most Super Nintendo games; DHTML/Javascript is still pushing hard to look like an original NES. Both, of course, are hundreds of times slower than native applications.
Flash has its problems, obviously; it breaks the whole browsing paradigm. However, there's just nothing else out there right now with the same mix of capabilities; it has its niche. (Maybe java applets, but those universally suck. Maybe Silverlight could, but nobody seriously uses it.)
My fear is that in one or two more console generations, they will be as miserable, inconvenient, and error-prone as pc gaming is.
In fairness, nobody with any amount of knowledge expected it to have any impact. It's not really accurate to say it 'went wrong' when most of us never expected it to work in the first place.
Your 15" laptop that you sit (15 x 8 / 5) 24" away from? You're actually agreeing with the parent post.
I think there would be no shortage of volunteers. And by that, I mean, millions of volunteers, including all astronauts, and everybody that wants to be one.
I'm kind of surprised to read a poster on slashdot write they wouldn't volunteer for a one-way mission.
The Soviets did have an unsustainable system; but it wasn't pre-ordained how long they would last. There is little doubt America's actions hastened their decline by decades. That could reasonably be described as 'beating'.
Use the wayback machine to visit it before it started retroactively honoring robots.txt.
The oldbar addon, while it makes the situation much better, doesn't completely fix the search and url retention problems with the awesomebar. Esthetically, it fixes the looks, but not every aspect of the behavior.
And you can always get the "oldbar" addin, to fix the "Awesomebar". It's one of the addins I always install, along with flashblock, mouse gestures, etc.
I don't have a problem with Mozilla including the awesomebar in Mozilla 3.0; I dislike how they stripped out the functionality to revert to the simpler, more rational original toolbar. 3.0 betas had configuration options to switch.
I don't quite agree. I don't think this is a case of Google having undue influence over Mozilla. Google is shutting off the service they provided. What's Mozilla supposed to do?
Now, I think Mozilla has screwed up a lot lately. Some decisions they made for the 3.0 series reek of the same corporatism force-feeding of unpopular options that we get from other big annoying software companies. But this wasn't one of them. I'm sure everybody understood Google wouldn't support that feature forever.
Very true. Although the two sides differ somewhat on what they try to censor, it's a tool all corrupt politicians love, regardless of party.
And they especially love edge cases like the Scorpions album, because it allows them to expand the breadth of censorship, while still seeming virtuous. It'll make the attempts at political censorship, later, seem like not such a stretch.
Two areas are being conflated. The PC Games industry is the one committing slow suicide. Consoles are going strong. I think the problem with PC games is that publishers are trying to be force them into the same model as consoles, and it simply doesn't fit.
Sure, classify it as murder; just keep in mind, you've now defined murder as a potentially good thing, socially approved and ethically justifiable.
Oh, I don't really disagree. I think this is a legitimate device, and kudos to the company for making it, but I don't really think medicare should be paying for it. But then, I don't really like medicare paying for _anything_. As you say, it kind of undermines the concept of rights.
Very few people seem to understand the electoral college, true. There is no national election in the United States. There are simultaneous state elections, where electors are chosen. They, at a later date, choose the president.
There are good reasons for that, and they aren't the typical canards that are trotted out about how difficult it was to coordinate an election in the 17th century. It is because of the division of powers between the Federal and State governments. I don't know if you are a United States resident or not, but most people outside of the U.S. don't really understand how independent the states are. The vast majority of Law resides at the state level, as do all elections, even for president electors. You may disagree with that, but it's not archaic in any sense, no more than the separation of the legislative/judicial/executive branches is.
Lets see. Right to bear arms. That's not archaic; it's based on principle, and that (by definition) doesn't change. The right of self-defense is as fundamental as the right of free speech or the right to be secure in your possessions. Those concepts no more become dated over time than Aristotle's rules of logic do.
Free Healthcare. Not a right. It's a misunderstanding of rights to imagine it could be. Nothing that is 'given' can be a right. A right only allows, never gives. There is no right to housing, medical care, food, or tv. Only a right to not be restricted from obtaining any of those, if you could otherwise produce or trade for them.
Loser pays court system: Yeah, you're right, we need to fix that... although I don't think that's actually a constitutional issue.
Equal access to the media: Well, everybody does have equal access to the media. You want to control the media, and regulate who and how much they can cover. That's a direct abridgment of free speech rights; see the problem with 'the right to medical care' above, for the reason.
If allowing gun ownership is a matter of ethical principle and human rights, than the "rate of gun deaths" and other such evidence is pretty much irrelevant.
If free speech cost lives, what death rate would convince us to abandon that right? 1%?
The correct answer, of course, is that the risk is irrelevant. Self defense (and free speech) is the right and perview, first and foremost, of the individual, and shouldn't be taken away based on comparative statistics.
Nobody is pro-war.
And yet there's still a useful distinction between the Anti-War crowd and... the others.
Just like there is between the Anti-Abortion crowd and... the others. Whatever you want to call them.
Um... you might want to rethink that core reasoning.
The GP post was saying those deaths include GOOD gundeaths. The more violent attackers killed by guns, the BETTER. It renders a high gun-deaths figure irrelevant, because we don't know how many of those deaths were undesirable.
You're wrong; I think you're too passionate about the issue. He stated what principles anti-abortion people tend to base their stance on.
Doing so is not innately pro or anti abortion. It's just stating a fact, and is no different than explaining why most pro-choice people think that the mother should have the freedom to abort.
His point, which you missed, is that the principles that lead anti-abortionists to that conclusion simply are inapplicable to, say, the morality of warfare. Apples and oranges. Comparing the two is a rather simplistic logical error, and if you really, honestly, paid attention to _what_he_actually_said_,, you would never make that mistake again.
Well, any doctor that believes humans should have the right to defend themselves. Doctors aren't required to fix people up and send them out to be killed, defenseless.
You think most doctors wouldn't shoot somebody who was attacking them? They would. Their oath doesn't forbid that. So how hypocritical would it be for them to deny that right to one of their patients?
That's always amused me. Somebody complaining about the cognitive dissonance of being pro-gun (or pro-death penalty) and anti-abortion... who can't even see what that implies about the people with opposite stances...
Really, though, a modicum of understanding of either side will reveal that there's no contradiction; any apparent similarity between, say, abortion and war, is pretty simplistic, and overlooks the real and fundamental issues motivating both sides.
If it deters or kills an assailant, it has a STRONG and IMMEDIATE health benefit to the intended victim. That's the whole point.
Support of anatomy, I'd presume. An infirm person may not be strong enough to fire a gun. Not being strong enough to fire a gun puts them at risk; assailants can reasonably assume that weak, disabled people are easy victims. Self-defense is a human right; bearing arms is a consitutional right, and infirmity may prevent a patient from exercising that right.
No different than a cane, or a speech synthesizer for someone who has difficulty talking.
There are a lot of young people that are crazy, too. Probably a higher percentage. I'd rather have everybody over fifty packing guns than everybody between 18-25.