However, he considered the FISA amendment as a whole more important than one provision because it addressed several ambiguities that have complicated intelligence operations and opened the door to the abuses of the Bush administration.
Completely unacceptable. If he truly believed in not allowing the telecoms immunity, he wouldn't have voted for the POS bill. His actions show us that his words mean nothing.
You wouldn't necessarily agree with him, but at least you'd see that he has entirely valid reasons for his position.
If by "valid reasons" you mean he's a politician who does what's most expedient to further his own ends, regardless of how many promises he breaks or if it's even ethically permissible, then yes, I can definitely see that.
And yet, Linux and BSD run great on a wide variety of hardware. If Mac OS couldn't, that just proves either a) they have some talentless hacks for programmers, or b) they're deliberately making it run badly on non-Apple hardware, which they probably couldn't do if they lost this suit.
Uh... he voted for it. The bill gives immunity to the telecoms for breaking the law, just because the president said it was ok. Thus, Obama's vote tells us that he's ok with people breaking the law, just as long as the government finds it expedient. That's all the reason I need to hate the guy (as a politician, not as a person).
By your own arguments it's the same difficulty with a calculator and metric is easier without one. QED metric is easier overall. You should be disappearing in a poof of logic right now.
And? I find it hard to care about the small advantage metric presents, given that it only presents an advantage when I don't have a calculator on hand, which is extremely rarely.
I don't recall ever saying that and I would have said that if that is what I meant.
I didn't say you said it. I said your logic, if applied to a different arena, dictates what I said.
I don't recall ever saying that and I would have said that if that is what I meant. However, English has become the de-facto language of international commerce and scientific discourse if you want to get picky about it. No need to "curse the heathens" since 95% of the world seems to realize that a common measurement system is a useful thing.
And? The metric crowd doesn't whine about how the US should use metric in commerce and science (they already do that, at least in science), they whine how the citizens should use metric for everything in their daily lives. And y'know, I somehow doubt you'll find many French people speaking primarily English in their normal lives.
Besides imperial units these days are defined against metric units. An inch is explicitly defined as 2.54 centimeters. So you're using metric whether you realize it or not. Why not just cut out the complication and use the real thing?
There isn't any significant complication, that's what you're missing. There would be real complication if you try to cram the metric system down people's throats, as you try to force an entire nation of people to use units different from the ones they naturally think in. You can retrain yourself for that sort of thing, but it isn't easy or desirable. The advantages afforded by metric are extremely small, and the disadvantages in a conversion would be huge. Why, exactly, would any sane person want to convert?
Way to completely misinterpret what I said. I have NEVER said that I'd not give them a chance, that I'd stick them in the proverbial basement killing roaches, that I'd fire them without provocation, or anything like that. I said closer scrutiny. That means letting them do their job, but keeping a damn good eye on them because the probability that they can't do it is higher. Have you even been reading what I've been writing, or just reading what you want to??
Sure there is. Ease of unit conversion and ease of communication with the REST OF THE FREAKING WORLD. We live in a global economy - we should start acting like it.
Ease of conversion? Are you kidding? It's no easier to convert in either system, unless you only can do math in your head at the moment. Then the metric system has the advantage. If you have some sort of calculator (y'know, most of the time), it's dead easy either way.
Ease of communication doesn't cut it, either. By your logic, we should all be using the same language, and cursing out those heathens who refuse to abandon the language that they're used to. Yet we're not... we accept that people do things in their own way, and when we work with each other, we have to make some adjustments. Ease of communication is quite possibly the worst argument anyone has ever given for the metric system, since we have far greater barriers with language.
The FISA amendments show that Obama does not believe the law should apply when it's inconvenient for it to apply. He might claim otherwise, but if he really believed the rhetoric, he'd back it up with action. He had the opportunity, and failed. I'm not saying that this bill turns America into a totalitarian state (the totalitarian state thing was just an example of how one issue can be hugely important), or anything close. I am saying it sets a terrible precedent where our government can now say that the law doesn't apply, just because they don't want it to. Obama is complicit in that undermining of the rule of law, and that is unforgiveable.
If neither man is fit to be president, you'd better believe I'm not voting for either one. I don't go in for this "lesser of two evils" philosophy that so many people apply to their vote. I vote for the man who will do a good job, not the man who will do a less bad job. Neither Obama nor McCain will do a good job, so I will vote for neither one.
I don't typically decide my vote based on one issue, but sometimes (such as this), it's such a hugely important issue that it overshadows everything else. How can anyone, in good conscience, vote for a man who has shown he doesn't believe the law should apply when it's inconvenient?
Sometimes, one issue is important enough to make up the entire election. If, for example, both candidates wanted to turn our government into a totalitarian state, abolishing the courts and Congress, no one would vote for either of them regardless of what else they stood for. This FISA thing is the same way, because it indicates that neither candidate believes in actually having the rule of law in this country. Well, fuck that. I'm sorry, but I demand a president who believes the law actually applies all the time, and since neither McCain nor Obama think that, neither of them is worth my vote or anyone else's.
Neither man believes in holding corporations (and presumably people) accountable to the law when it's inconvenient for the government to do so. Neither man should have a damn thing to do with my government at all, let alone the presidency.
No, you're the one not paying attention if you don't see the striking similarities, which erase any differences that there might be. Let's recap: Obama voted for the FISA bill. In doing so, he showed that, as far as he's concerned, the rule of law applies in this country only when it's convenient. So, on one hand, we have McCain, who supports immunity (i.e., does not respect the rule of law we strive for). On the other hand, we have Obama, who claims to not support immunity, but really does support it as evidenced by his actions. So he, too, does not respect the rule of law. Not to mention the fact that both of them think that it's a good idea to wiretap people just on suspicions they might be a terrorists, and all the horrible precedent that sets.
Both the candidates this year are completely worthless. If you can't see that, you're blind.
And, after FISA, you think Obama is going to be so different? Obama showed us, very clearly, that he believes in the law applying when the government thinks it should apply (by voting for the FISA bill even with the immunity provision). He's the same guy with a different face, you would do just as well voting for either.
Because for the first time in 40 years there is a contender who isn't a rich old white guy. For the first time EVER there is a real contender who isn't white.
If you can't see that this is an astonishing departure from the status quo, then you really are blind. I'm not sure what kind of candidate it would take to impress people like you, short of a 35-year old gay atheist inuit liberatarian
If you think superficial factors make him a better candidate for president, then you're every bit as damned stupid as the racists who think that they automatically make him worse. Most of us recognize that the color of his skin is irrelevant. We judge him by his merits as a candidate. Or, as Martin Luther King, Jr., would have said, we judge him not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. And I, personally, have judged him by his worth as a candidate, and found him no different than any other politician. A lot of talk, nothing to back it up. Just look at the damn FISA bill if you want evidence. If that doesn't convince you that Obama is the same breed, just with a different skin tone, nothing will.
There's this idiotic attitude that is starting to pervade our society, where people figure that because a group of people was oppressed in the past, now they should get special regard. That's every bit as immoral and insulting as oppressing them in the first place! Judge them as the person they are, not as the color of their skin, whether positively or negatively.
Until we change our voting system to something like Instant Runoff voting, the large parties will never be beaten because voting for a 3rd party really is throwing away your vote.
No, it really isn't. This is an infuriating bit of misinformation that needs to stop. The only thing that is throwing away your vote is not voting. Any vote, any vote at all, is not throwing your vote away. Period. More importantly, the only thing that keeps third parties from gaining power in this country is thinking like yours. We should get a different voting system, but barring that, people need to wake the fuck up and realize they're only shooting themselves in the foot by voting for "not that guy". Obama and McCain have clearly shown us that you're just voting for the same guy, with a different name.
I understood what was meant. Even if one doesn't know that some people don't use commas to separate numbers, it was perfectly clear from context what was meant. I was just joking. Whoosh, and all that.
Lemme try to explain it this way. I love the movie "Cable Guy" and the movie "Casablanca" bores me to tears. What I am able to do though, is accept that Cable Guy is nowhere near the caliber of movie that Casablanca is, EVEN THOUGH I like Cable Guy and hate Casablanca.
That's the thing, though. Why should you accept that? Movies are entertainment. If Cable Guy entertains you more than Casablanca, it's a better movie, from your perspective. I don't believe that one can say Casablanca is objectively better, simply because you're measuring a piece of entertainment. Its value is inherently subjective. The same goes for UI design. A good UI is one that enables you to work most efficiently. Since people work most efficiently in different ways, sometimes, we can't say that one way is the One True Way, it's a subjective field.
I understand that it's better to compare things objectively if we can, but sometimes, it just isn't possible, and I feel that art and UI design are two of those cases.
No, good design works, whether you believe it or not. More realistically, whether you WANT to believe it or not. Just because YOU like to do something a certain way, doesn't mean there aren't best practices in place that are better than your way.
That's true, the way you like to do something is not necessarily the best way to do it. But it can be, as well! And if even one person finds that the best way, for them, to do something is different from the "correct" way, that renders the "correctness" of it meaningless. It's either true for everyone, or we can't call it very true at all. There is no mythical "best" way to do everything, a lot of things are decided by personal preference. You can rail at someone who works in the way most effective to them about how they're doing it "wrong" all you want, but in the end, it's you who's wrong, not them. If the "best" way isn't best for everyone, then it isn't the "best" way.
That doesn't mean anything. If UI design were truly an objective thing, we would be able to design a UI that is consistently good for everyone. We haven't been able to do that yet. That should be a major clue to anyone that the study of UI design is major BS. I'm just saying, any other field of study worth anything produces results which are the same for everyone. Gravity works whether you believe in it or not. Not so with UI design.
My point is that you should apply the same standard of suspicion to everyone until you determine how qualified they are. Singling out women because you know there is a quota in place is discrimination.
No, it isn't! That's total bullshit! It would be discrimination if I were singling them out because they were women. Singling people out because they were hired under a quota law, causing there to be a higher probability of them being incompetent, is being prudent. It's not discrimination to apply greater scrutiny to people who are more likely to be bad employees! How can you not get this?
Having watched a lot of beginning computer users I fundamentally disagree with the thought that usability of two buttons is proved for all users. I simply cannot believe it is true in the general case, though it is true for more advanced use.
The thing is, it's not the best idea to cater to those people. I work in desktop support in IT, so I get to deal with beginner and clueless users all the time. A bunch of them are just not well-educated about computers, but will make the effort to learn anything you try to teach them--and they're fine. A significant number, though, just plain do not try to learn. Period. You can tell them something a dozen times, write it down for them, whatever, and they will keep asking you the same damned thing. They just aren't trying to learn, and it isn't because they're stupid--they're normally smart people. Put them in front of a computer, however, and suddenly they figure (for whatever reason) that they don't need to even try to learn this thing, cause they're just too {adjective} to get it.
These are the people that are going to have problems with two-button mice. Beginners who make an effort to learn will pick it up quickly enough, but the ones who don't try will never learn--and I have absolutely no sympathy for them. I make an effort to learn about things that impact my life a lot, even if I know nothing about them. These people choose not to, and they can suffer the consequences of their apathy for all I give a damn.
Ah, shit. You hit on what should have been readily obvious to me: the need for two sockets. I completely overlooked that, and just grabbed an LGA 775 mobo at random. That throws my entire calculation off, and I apologize.
So in other words, you diminish the technical merits of Apple hardware because a bunch of people like it? That's sort of like when I was 18 and stopped liking my favorite band because they went mainstream.
Oh please. I use Windows, for God's sake... it doesn't get more mainstream than that. I don't give a damn how many people like it, I give a damn that they're so fanatical they'd like anything.
If you can't see the well-documented and tangible benefits of OSX for home users...
List 'em off, if you want, and I'll be happy to consider them. At the moment, though, I break it down like this:
Mac OS has the worst GUI of all the major operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
However, he considered the FISA amendment as a whole more important than one provision because it addressed several ambiguities that have complicated intelligence operations and opened the door to the abuses of the Bush administration.
Completely unacceptable. If he truly believed in not allowing the telecoms immunity, he wouldn't have voted for the POS bill. His actions show us that his words mean nothing.
You wouldn't necessarily agree with him, but at least you'd see that he has entirely valid reasons for his position.
If by "valid reasons" you mean he's a politician who does what's most expedient to further his own ends, regardless of how many promises he breaks or if it's even ethically permissible, then yes, I can definitely see that.
And yet, Linux and BSD run great on a wide variety of hardware. If Mac OS couldn't, that just proves either a) they have some talentless hacks for programmers, or b) they're deliberately making it run badly on non-Apple hardware, which they probably couldn't do if they lost this suit.
Uh... he voted for it. The bill gives immunity to the telecoms for breaking the law, just because the president said it was ok. Thus, Obama's vote tells us that he's ok with people breaking the law, just as long as the government finds it expedient. That's all the reason I need to hate the guy (as a politician, not as a person).
By your own arguments it's the same difficulty with a calculator and metric is easier without one. QED metric is easier overall. You should be disappearing in a poof of logic right now.
And? I find it hard to care about the small advantage metric presents, given that it only presents an advantage when I don't have a calculator on hand, which is extremely rarely.
I don't recall ever saying that and I would have said that if that is what I meant.
I didn't say you said it. I said your logic, if applied to a different arena, dictates what I said.
I don't recall ever saying that and I would have said that if that is what I meant. However, English has become the de-facto language of international commerce and scientific discourse if you want to get picky about it. No need to "curse the heathens" since 95% of the world seems to realize that a common measurement system is a useful thing.
And? The metric crowd doesn't whine about how the US should use metric in commerce and science (they already do that, at least in science), they whine how the citizens should use metric for everything in their daily lives. And y'know, I somehow doubt you'll find many French people speaking primarily English in their normal lives.
Besides imperial units these days are defined against metric units. An inch is explicitly defined as 2.54 centimeters. So you're using metric whether you realize it or not. Why not just cut out the complication and use the real thing?
There isn't any significant complication, that's what you're missing. There would be real complication if you try to cram the metric system down people's throats, as you try to force an entire nation of people to use units different from the ones they naturally think in. You can retrain yourself for that sort of thing, but it isn't easy or desirable. The advantages afforded by metric are extremely small, and the disadvantages in a conversion would be huge. Why, exactly, would any sane person want to convert?
Way to completely misinterpret what I said. I have NEVER said that I'd not give them a chance, that I'd stick them in the proverbial basement killing roaches, that I'd fire them without provocation, or anything like that. I said closer scrutiny. That means letting them do their job, but keeping a damn good eye on them because the probability that they can't do it is higher. Have you even been reading what I've been writing, or just reading what you want to??
Sure there is. Ease of unit conversion and ease of communication with the REST OF THE FREAKING WORLD. We live in a global economy - we should start acting like it.
Ease of conversion? Are you kidding? It's no easier to convert in either system, unless you only can do math in your head at the moment. Then the metric system has the advantage. If you have some sort of calculator (y'know, most of the time), it's dead easy either way.
Ease of communication doesn't cut it, either. By your logic, we should all be using the same language, and cursing out those heathens who refuse to abandon the language that they're used to. Yet we're not... we accept that people do things in their own way, and when we work with each other, we have to make some adjustments. Ease of communication is quite possibly the worst argument anyone has ever given for the metric system, since we have far greater barriers with language.
The FISA amendments show that Obama does not believe the law should apply when it's inconvenient for it to apply. He might claim otherwise, but if he really believed the rhetoric, he'd back it up with action. He had the opportunity, and failed. I'm not saying that this bill turns America into a totalitarian state (the totalitarian state thing was just an example of how one issue can be hugely important), or anything close. I am saying it sets a terrible precedent where our government can now say that the law doesn't apply, just because they don't want it to. Obama is complicit in that undermining of the rule of law, and that is unforgiveable.
If neither man is fit to be president, you'd better believe I'm not voting for either one. I don't go in for this "lesser of two evils" philosophy that so many people apply to their vote. I vote for the man who will do a good job, not the man who will do a less bad job. Neither Obama nor McCain will do a good job, so I will vote for neither one.
I don't typically decide my vote based on one issue, but sometimes (such as this), it's such a hugely important issue that it overshadows everything else. How can anyone, in good conscience, vote for a man who has shown he doesn't believe the law should apply when it's inconvenient?
Sometimes, one issue is important enough to make up the entire election. If, for example, both candidates wanted to turn our government into a totalitarian state, abolishing the courts and Congress, no one would vote for either of them regardless of what else they stood for. This FISA thing is the same way, because it indicates that neither candidate believes in actually having the rule of law in this country. Well, fuck that. I'm sorry, but I demand a president who believes the law actually applies all the time, and since neither McCain nor Obama think that, neither of them is worth my vote or anyone else's.
Neither man believes in holding corporations (and presumably people) accountable to the law when it's inconvenient for the government to do so. Neither man should have a damn thing to do with my government at all, let alone the presidency.
If Windows had a kernel numbered 1.33.7 with a beta name of "Loopy Longhorn", would it be a better finished product?
The obvious answer is yes. It'd be 1337, of course it'd be better!
No, you're the one not paying attention if you don't see the striking similarities, which erase any differences that there might be. Let's recap: Obama voted for the FISA bill. In doing so, he showed that, as far as he's concerned, the rule of law applies in this country only when it's convenient. So, on one hand, we have McCain, who supports immunity (i.e., does not respect the rule of law we strive for). On the other hand, we have Obama, who claims to not support immunity, but really does support it as evidenced by his actions. So he, too, does not respect the rule of law. Not to mention the fact that both of them think that it's a good idea to wiretap people just on suspicions they might be a terrorists, and all the horrible precedent that sets.
Both the candidates this year are completely worthless. If you can't see that, you're blind.
And, after FISA, you think Obama is going to be so different? Obama showed us, very clearly, that he believes in the law applying when the government thinks it should apply (by voting for the FISA bill even with the immunity provision). He's the same guy with a different face, you would do just as well voting for either.
Because for the first time in 40 years there is a contender who isn't a rich old white guy. For the first time EVER there is a real contender who isn't white.
If you can't see that this is an astonishing departure from the status quo, then you really are blind. I'm not sure what kind of candidate it would take to impress people like you, short of a 35-year old gay atheist inuit liberatarian
If you think superficial factors make him a better candidate for president, then you're every bit as damned stupid as the racists who think that they automatically make him worse. Most of us recognize that the color of his skin is irrelevant. We judge him by his merits as a candidate. Or, as Martin Luther King, Jr., would have said, we judge him not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. And I, personally, have judged him by his worth as a candidate, and found him no different than any other politician. A lot of talk, nothing to back it up. Just look at the damn FISA bill if you want evidence. If that doesn't convince you that Obama is the same breed, just with a different skin tone, nothing will.
There's this idiotic attitude that is starting to pervade our society, where people figure that because a group of people was oppressed in the past, now they should get special regard. That's every bit as immoral and insulting as oppressing them in the first place! Judge them as the person they are, not as the color of their skin, whether positively or negatively.
Until we change our voting system to something like Instant Runoff voting, the large parties will never be beaten because voting for a 3rd party really is throwing away your vote.
No, it really isn't. This is an infuriating bit of misinformation that needs to stop. The only thing that is throwing away your vote is not voting. Any vote, any vote at all, is not throwing your vote away. Period. More importantly, the only thing that keeps third parties from gaining power in this country is thinking like yours. We should get a different voting system, but barring that, people need to wake the fuck up and realize they're only shooting themselves in the foot by voting for "not that guy". Obama and McCain have clearly shown us that you're just voting for the same guy, with a different name.
I understood what was meant. Even if one doesn't know that some people don't use commas to separate numbers, it was perfectly clear from context what was meant. I was just joking. Whoosh, and all that.
Lemme try to explain it this way. I love the movie "Cable Guy" and the movie "Casablanca" bores me to tears. What I am able to do though, is accept that Cable Guy is nowhere near the caliber of movie that Casablanca is, EVEN THOUGH I like Cable Guy and hate Casablanca.
That's the thing, though. Why should you accept that? Movies are entertainment. If Cable Guy entertains you more than Casablanca, it's a better movie, from your perspective. I don't believe that one can say Casablanca is objectively better, simply because you're measuring a piece of entertainment. Its value is inherently subjective. The same goes for UI design. A good UI is one that enables you to work most efficiently. Since people work most efficiently in different ways, sometimes, we can't say that one way is the One True Way, it's a subjective field.
I understand that it's better to compare things objectively if we can, but sometimes, it just isn't possible, and I feel that art and UI design are two of those cases.
30 pages of text for 10 years? I have books that do better than that! ;)
No, good design works, whether you believe it or not. More realistically, whether you WANT to believe it or not. Just because YOU like to do something a certain way, doesn't mean there aren't best practices in place that are better than your way.
That's true, the way you like to do something is not necessarily the best way to do it. But it can be, as well! And if even one person finds that the best way, for them, to do something is different from the "correct" way, that renders the "correctness" of it meaningless. It's either true for everyone, or we can't call it very true at all. There is no mythical "best" way to do everything, a lot of things are decided by personal preference. You can rail at someone who works in the way most effective to them about how they're doing it "wrong" all you want, but in the end, it's you who's wrong, not them. If the "best" way isn't best for everyone, then it isn't the "best" way.
That doesn't mean anything. If UI design were truly an objective thing, we would be able to design a UI that is consistently good for everyone. We haven't been able to do that yet. That should be a major clue to anyone that the study of UI design is major BS. I'm just saying, any other field of study worth anything produces results which are the same for everyone. Gravity works whether you believe in it or not. Not so with UI design.
your opinion about good design seems to be based on, well, your opinion, as opposed to years of studies of use-cases.
I know, right!? My opinion on something completely subjective is based on personal preference! That's just crazy, man.
My point is that you should apply the same standard of suspicion to everyone until you determine how qualified they are. Singling out women because you know there is a quota in place is discrimination.
No, it isn't! That's total bullshit! It would be discrimination if I were singling them out because they were women. Singling people out because they were hired under a quota law, causing there to be a higher probability of them being incompetent, is being prudent. It's not discrimination to apply greater scrutiny to people who are more likely to be bad employees! How can you not get this?
Having watched a lot of beginning computer users I fundamentally disagree with the thought that usability of two buttons is proved for all users. I simply cannot believe it is true in the general case, though it is true for more advanced use.
The thing is, it's not the best idea to cater to those people. I work in desktop support in IT, so I get to deal with beginner and clueless users all the time. A bunch of them are just not well-educated about computers, but will make the effort to learn anything you try to teach them--and they're fine. A significant number, though, just plain do not try to learn. Period. You can tell them something a dozen times, write it down for them, whatever, and they will keep asking you the same damned thing. They just aren't trying to learn, and it isn't because they're stupid--they're normally smart people. Put them in front of a computer, however, and suddenly they figure (for whatever reason) that they don't need to even try to learn this thing, cause they're just too {adjective} to get it.
These are the people that are going to have problems with two-button mice. Beginners who make an effort to learn will pick it up quickly enough, but the ones who don't try will never learn--and I have absolutely no sympathy for them. I make an effort to learn about things that impact my life a lot, even if I know nothing about them. These people choose not to, and they can suffer the consequences of their apathy for all I give a damn.
Ah, shit. You hit on what should have been readily obvious to me: the need for two sockets. I completely overlooked that, and just grabbed an LGA 775 mobo at random. That throws my entire calculation off, and I apologize.
So in other words, you diminish the technical merits of Apple hardware because a bunch of people like it? That's sort of like when I was 18 and stopped liking my favorite band because they went mainstream.
Oh please. I use Windows, for God's sake... it doesn't get more mainstream than that. I don't give a damn how many people like it, I give a damn that they're so fanatical they'd like anything.
If you can't see the well-documented and tangible benefits of OSX for home users...
List 'em off, if you want, and I'll be happy to consider them. At the moment, though, I break it down like this: