I wonder if we could use a solution where, if convicted, his name and face are plastered over radio ads, tv ads, billboards, etc., with a message that basically says "This man is a total asshole. Seriously, he's a douche. Nobody was physically injured by his actions, but holy shit he's a dickbag. Don't do him any favours."
Something like that might help kindle the sort of social ostracism that seems like a more appropriate response than jail time.
I guess that's sort of related to what is done with sex offenders already in some places, but in that case actual prison time seems the most appropriate response.
Depends on your hardware. A lot of composited stuff in applications has to do a software fallback if you take off Aero Glass, and so it eats different resources.
I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like you're mixing the genre of the setting with the genre of the gameplay? They seem like orthogonal issues to me that just happen to share the word "genre" in different contexts.
Countries aren't like stocks, which are themselves notoriously hard to predict. Making a bad investment choice doesn't mean it's going to go down. Especially relative to whichever currency you use.
Myself, I think they are making the wrong choice by discounting nuclear entirely, but not the wrongest possible choice. Other green energy technologies have a place in replacing fossil fuels.
Look, I think this case is stupid too, but denying that there are similarities that aren't clearly called-for by the functionality weakens your position.
- That's a white phone handset of the same outdated style on a green background with a similar angle. It is a lot more similar than "they're both obvious phone icons". - I'll agree that the notebook icon is pretty much different. - The head-and-shoulders silhouette is not really an unavoidably obvious choice for your contacts. They could have used a rolodex in keeping with the phone and notebook metaphors. They could have used full figure humans. The rest of that icon is completely different but the silhouette is pretty similar and it's not nearly on the same scale of obvious iconography as the phone handset.
Capitalism (as an aspirational ideal) assumes that humans aren't humans too, and that society isn't society. It relies on all people being well-informed about everything in perpetuity, and it relies on asymptotic effects that we don't ever reach because society is dynamic, not static.
We need to move past Capitalism and Communism as aspirational ideals and think critically about choices on an individual level, rather than categorizing them toward one ideal or the other and siding always with the ideal.
There was definitely a transitional time when LCDs were cheap but response was typically 20ms or more, but LCDs good enough for gamers were expensive. I can remember gamers going out of their way to get CRTs while most everybody else got LCDs with new machines. IIRC non-gamer LCD computer monitors were the norm well before flatscreen TVs were, but that might just be sampling error.
With a larger-screen eReader you could just map a page directly to the screen.
There may very well come a time when, instead of trying to fit standard comic book dimensions, comic books artists try to fit standard eReader dimensions anyway.
Or, if you write for eReader format in the first place, the speech bubbles etc. could size dynamically so you could have readable fonts despite scaling the rest of the image to fit the dimensions and resolution. You need a square, an ellipse (with mock "imperfections" to mimic the hand-drawn ellipses from the earlier ages of comics), a cloud, and a sort of spiky cloud to cover the vast majority of comic text. I think that's already how comics are made, the trick is to make it dynamically adjustable to the end-user.
The PC market sells hardware that is not locked down, and sells it at no loss. That's what a console without any lockdown, sold at profit rather than as a loss-leader, looks like.
It's not reasonable to argue that three distinct curated video game experiences are each monopolies, when, first of all, there's three of them, and second of all, you don't have to participate in any of them to get video games.
Given that there does not seem to be a monopoly or collusive oligopoly on the relevant market (video game entertainment, as opposed to "Sony-produced video game entertainment"), why should this be illegal? I don't understand why companies like Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony, should not, in general, be legally permitted to offer for sale whatever they want to sell with whatever terms they want to attach to the sale, and an (informed) consumer able to accept or refuse such sales.
They aren't holding the "desktop app" constant. They demo'd several changes. And I'm certain the majority of changes will be under the hood.
You can observe everybody focusing on the UI because that's all that can be communicated in a screenshot, and then they say things like "why are you only changing the UI, why don't you fix the OS". This isn't limited to Microsoft.
Ballmer and Sinofsky aren't vanilla-sounding to you? Are you kidding me? Where did you grow up that Gates and Allen sound normal but Ballmer does not?
Jesus Christ, Ballmer's an English name. Like, from England. It's more English than Gates (Scottish!) or Allen (Scottish again, or Irish!), in fact. Do you...do you think Jewish means "not Scottish"? That's got to be the most charitable interpretation.
Sinofsky sounds like it comes from Eastern Europe. Belarus or thereabouts. I'd guess that Myrhvold is Norwegian from the looks of it? Low confidence. But there's no fucking pattern at all.
The vast majority of people in every country outside of the british isles, the United States included, do not have surnames that come from the british isles, even after generations of people changing their surnames to "fit in".
Well, I'm pretty sure I got trolled here. Well done.
Wearing a short skirt is so much less inappropriate than repeatedly touching somebody who doesn't want to be touched, that it doesn't really deserve to be discussed at the same time.
And even if it was on the same level, person A doing something wrong doesn't excuse person B doing something wrong.
...do you seriously get uncomfortable around women wearing short skirts? What the fuck is up with that?
Yes, it does make me less free. I'm happy to give up that freedom, because slavery is just awful and yes, because their freedom matters. But I don't think there's any meaningful comparison to non-copyleft code. In fact it weakens the comparison, in the same way that showing somebody a slightly underripe orange after showing them a rotten orange makes the underripe orange look appetizing by comparison.
The analogy also isn't parallel. You're trying to equivocate you not owning slaves to you not being a slave, as though freedom to own slaves and freedom from being a slave were the same thing. The flaw is easier to see with software: you not having to contribute code back to project A (started by somebody else) does not imply that people do not have to contribute back to project B (started by you).
I think in general my problem is this: I don't think that not giving something to somebody is meaningfully restricting anybody's freedom, with a few exceptions. Withholding oxygen, yes. Withholding the scores to the latest basketball game, no.
There's an interesting parallel to tax law here. You could argue that a multi-billionaire, by withholding his wealth from the masses, is restricting the masses' freedom. Therefore society should restrict the freedom to attain massive wealth. Now, I do support progressive taxation. But progressive taxes seems like a measured response compared to GPL vs. BSD which is pretty much all-or-nothing, over an issue which is, frankly, not as big a deal as government.
That does actually have consequences, because even end-users can be distributors in the form of the secondary market. To resell your anti-Tivoised GPLv3 set-top box, you would need to keep track of the version of the source code for the software you are distributing on the set-top. In theory that should be okay by going recursive: you just contact the person who sold you the set-top box, and the GPL requires them to give you the source on demand, so your problem is solved. But maybe the business is gone, the seller died, the seller reneges on GPL (forcing you to renege as well), or you moved. The originator of the code is not required to redistribute to you if you bought through an intermediate, I believe, they are only required to have source available to the people they distributed the compiled software to.
In a sense, GPL's restrictions are actually kind of similar to DRM or one-time "bonus content" unlock codes on retail games, in that it makes it more difficult to have a secondary market. For free-as-in-beer software the "secondary market" isn't very meaningful, but for devices which run GPL software it does.
I don't know how big an issue that is practically speaking. And I am not a lawyer and these are just my musings; maybe I'm missing a loophole; blah blah blah.
I'm curious: what do you use the current explorer interface for that would have to be relearned on a ribbon?
I'm pretty sure the only reason I ever go there is to turn off "hide file extensions for known file types". Everything else happens by expanding out the tree, drag and drop, right click context menus, ctrl-x / ctrl-c / ctrl-v, etc.. I doubt if I'd even notice the switch to a ribbon (unless it made something much better).
Is he saying 100 or more tabs total, or 100 or more tabs each?
I would say 3000 really is an edge-case. Yes, they should be testing that sort of thing because it might reveal problems that can happen earlier by playing with probabilities, but it should be low priority.
100 tabs across 30 windows, though, is very large but not absurd (unless you're on low-end hardware).
Argumentation is not your strength. Your argument has this form:
You: 1. You're too stupid to be like me. 2. I'm better than people like you.
He/she counter-argues.
You: 1. I win the argument (implied: because you are too stupid to understand your own argument). 2. Irrelevant statement that shows you misses the point. 3. Casual, incredible arrogance, combined with strawman attacks. 4. BTW, I win the argument (implied: because you are too stupid to understand your own argument).
Their most frequent ambassadors on the web are so incredibly arrogant, yet they frequently fail to display intelligence in their facile arguments, instead trying to overwhelm their opponent by unnecessarily and, frankly, inappropriately using uncommon words for common ideas. "Cognitively strong" should very rarely be used instead of "smart", especially if you're going to use the phrase "cognitive faculties" in the very next sentence. One use of cognitive might make your writing more varied and interesting per Orwell's sixth rule; two in as many sentences indicates that your active vocabulary is eclectic rather than large.
I don't want to be like that, and that's what I see of that group, ergo I do not want to be in that group. I fear I am being a bit rude here in giving a critique of one random sentence on the Internet, but in my defence, I find it very, very, very irritating -- one might say, "astonishingly annoying" -- to see people try to convince others not on the basis of sound reasoning but on their own unrelated and ephemeral achievements. That's what feeds anti-intellectualism.
This is a large part of why Mensa's membership is fewer than 1% of the 2% of the world population that qualifies for Mensa. I'll grant that a significant portion of the world population does not have access to Mensa, but then you have to grant that well over 2% of the population can actually qualify for Mensa, given that you can just keep taking tests until you pass and there is significant variance in test results, especially when you're measuring people who are already near the second standard deviation. Most people who can join don't want to. That's okay, but it means that there's basically a 2% chance that anybody not in Mensa, complaining about Mensa, is eligible for Mensa. It's intellectually lazy and fallacious to automatically bucket anybody who disagrees with you as an outsider anti-intellectual who just doesn't understand the struggles of being smart. And yes, the top 2% can be anti-intellectual, but being anti-Mensa is not the same as being anti-intellectual. Not to mention that you don't have to be even near the top 2% to be an intellectual.
While I agree that there's lots of types of intelligence, that doesn't mean that puzzle solving and number crunching isn't a thing worth studying. Like if they asked for people who could pitch the fastest fastball, it's accurate to say that there's a lot of other ways to be a great pitcher, but that doesn't mean that fastball speed isn't a thing that can be looked at.
As for whether gifted artists would score well on those tests -- I'm not really familiar with those tests, since I'm not American, but I think that depends on the type of artist. And, for that matter, what you think is "incredibly gifted", art being highly subjective compared to puzzle-solving and number-crunching.
What's a "sports genius"? An athlete? Somebody who can strategize in team sports? Somebody who memorized sports statistics?
All five of the major browsers are built by big companies, with hundreds of employees. Mozilla corporation, easily the "smallest", made 43.1 million dollars of income on 91.3 million of revenue in 2009. What niche browser do you favour?
Chrome is the only one that fits number 2 complaint (that I know of; it's been a while since I used Safari or Opera extensively).
Dragon Age 2 was easier for me to get through once I started thinking of it as a Board Game converted to a Video Game, rather than the sequel to "Dragon Age: Baldur's Gate Spinoff".
What's critical is to what degree risking others' lives with a car is a crime. The fact that they actually died is important in establishing to what degree this behaviour is risking the lives of others'.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if we could use a solution where, if convicted, his name and face are plastered over radio ads, tv ads, billboards, etc., with a message that basically says "This man is a total asshole. Seriously, he's a douche. Nobody was physically injured by his actions, but holy shit he's a dickbag. Don't do him any favours."
Something like that might help kindle the sort of social ostracism that seems like a more appropriate response than jail time.
I guess that's sort of related to what is done with sex offenders already in some places, but in that case actual prison time seems the most appropriate response.
Depends on your hardware. A lot of composited stuff in applications has to do a software fallback if you take off Aero Glass, and so it eats different resources.
I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like you're mixing the genre of the setting with the genre of the gameplay? They seem like orthogonal issues to me that just happen to share the word "genre" in different contexts.
Countries aren't like stocks, which are themselves notoriously hard to predict. Making a bad investment choice doesn't mean it's going to go down. Especially relative to whichever currency you use.
Myself, I think they are making the wrong choice by discounting nuclear entirely, but not the wrongest possible choice. Other green energy technologies have a place in replacing fossil fuels.
Look, I think this case is stupid too, but denying that there are similarities that aren't clearly called-for by the functionality weakens your position.
- That's a white phone handset of the same outdated style on a green background with a similar angle. It is a lot more similar than "they're both obvious phone icons".
- I'll agree that the notebook icon is pretty much different.
- The head-and-shoulders silhouette is not really an unavoidably obvious choice for your contacts. They could have used a rolodex in keeping with the phone and notebook metaphors. They could have used full figure humans. The rest of that icon is completely different but the silhouette is pretty similar and it's not nearly on the same scale of obvious iconography as the phone handset.
Capitalism (as an aspirational ideal) assumes that humans aren't humans too, and that society isn't society. It relies on all people being well-informed about everything in perpetuity, and it relies on asymptotic effects that we don't ever reach because society is dynamic, not static.
We need to move past Capitalism and Communism as aspirational ideals and think critically about choices on an individual level, rather than categorizing them toward one ideal or the other and siding always with the ideal.
There was definitely a transitional time when LCDs were cheap but response was typically 20ms or more, but LCDs good enough for gamers were expensive. I can remember gamers going out of their way to get CRTs while most everybody else got LCDs with new machines. IIRC non-gamer LCD computer monitors were the norm well before flatscreen TVs were, but that might just be sampling error.
With a larger-screen eReader you could just map a page directly to the screen.
There may very well come a time when, instead of trying to fit standard comic book dimensions, comic books artists try to fit standard eReader dimensions anyway.
Or, if you write for eReader format in the first place, the speech bubbles etc. could size dynamically so you could have readable fonts despite scaling the rest of the image to fit the dimensions and resolution. You need a square, an ellipse (with mock "imperfections" to mimic the hand-drawn ellipses from the earlier ages of comics), a cloud, and a sort of spiky cloud to cover the vast majority of comic text. I think that's already how comics are made, the trick is to make it dynamically adjustable to the end-user.
The PC market sells hardware that is not locked down, and sells it at no loss. That's what a console without any lockdown, sold at profit rather than as a loss-leader, looks like.
It's not reasonable to argue that three distinct curated video game experiences are each monopolies, when, first of all, there's three of them, and second of all, you don't have to participate in any of them to get video games.
Given that there does not seem to be a monopoly or collusive oligopoly on the relevant market (video game entertainment, as opposed to "Sony-produced video game entertainment"), why should this be illegal? I don't understand why companies like Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony, should not, in general, be legally permitted to offer for sale whatever they want to sell with whatever terms they want to attach to the sale, and an (informed) consumer able to accept or refuse such sales.
No, it's the "political faction I disagree with as contrasted to the one I agree with" play book for the last century or more.
Age 7, approximately.
Age = grade + 5, give or take a year because of the child's birthday compared to the start and end of the school year.
This information is available on wikipedia.
They aren't holding the "desktop app" constant. They demo'd several changes. And I'm certain the majority of changes will be under the hood.
You can observe everybody focusing on the UI because that's all that can be communicated in a screenshot, and then they say things like "why are you only changing the UI, why don't you fix the OS". This isn't limited to Microsoft.
Ballmer and Sinofsky aren't vanilla-sounding to you? Are you kidding me? Where did you grow up that Gates and Allen sound normal but Ballmer does not?
Jesus Christ, Ballmer's an English name. Like, from England. It's more English than Gates (Scottish!) or Allen (Scottish again, or Irish!), in fact. Do you...do you think Jewish means "not Scottish"? That's got to be the most charitable interpretation.
Sinofsky sounds like it comes from Eastern Europe. Belarus or thereabouts. I'd guess that Myrhvold is Norwegian from the looks of it? Low confidence. But there's no fucking pattern at all.
The vast majority of people in every country outside of the british isles, the United States included, do not have surnames that come from the british isles, even after generations of people changing their surnames to "fit in".
Well, I'm pretty sure I got trolled here. Well done.
Yes, and now read the GGP, knowing what shkotzim means.
The GGP is himself being anti-Jewish. He's not really hiding it and it's not subtle.
Wearing a short skirt is so much less inappropriate than repeatedly touching somebody who doesn't want to be touched, that it doesn't really deserve to be discussed at the same time.
And even if it was on the same level, person A doing something wrong doesn't excuse person B doing something wrong.
Couldn't they have instead inserted LTR control characters at the beginning and end of the message (and signatures)?
Yes, it does make me less free. I'm happy to give up that freedom, because slavery is just awful and yes, because their freedom matters. But I don't think there's any meaningful comparison to non-copyleft code. In fact it weakens the comparison, in the same way that showing somebody a slightly underripe orange after showing them a rotten orange makes the underripe orange look appetizing by comparison.
The analogy also isn't parallel. You're trying to equivocate you not owning slaves to you not being a slave, as though freedom to own slaves and freedom from being a slave were the same thing. The flaw is easier to see with software: you not having to contribute code back to project A (started by somebody else) does not imply that people do not have to contribute back to project B (started by you).
I think in general my problem is this: I don't think that not giving something to somebody is meaningfully restricting anybody's freedom, with a few exceptions. Withholding oxygen, yes. Withholding the scores to the latest basketball game, no.
There's an interesting parallel to tax law here. You could argue that a multi-billionaire, by withholding his wealth from the masses, is restricting the masses' freedom. Therefore society should restrict the freedom to attain massive wealth. Now, I do support progressive taxation. But progressive taxes seems like a measured response compared to GPL vs. BSD which is pretty much all-or-nothing, over an issue which is, frankly, not as big a deal as government.
That does actually have consequences, because even end-users can be distributors in the form of the secondary market. To resell your anti-Tivoised GPLv3 set-top box, you would need to keep track of the version of the source code for the software you are distributing on the set-top. In theory that should be okay by going recursive: you just contact the person who sold you the set-top box, and the GPL requires them to give you the source on demand, so your problem is solved. But maybe the business is gone, the seller died, the seller reneges on GPL (forcing you to renege as well), or you moved. The originator of the code is not required to redistribute to you if you bought through an intermediate, I believe, they are only required to have source available to the people they distributed the compiled software to.
In a sense, GPL's restrictions are actually kind of similar to DRM or one-time "bonus content" unlock codes on retail games, in that it makes it more difficult to have a secondary market. For free-as-in-beer software the "secondary market" isn't very meaningful, but for devices which run GPL software it does.
I don't know how big an issue that is practically speaking. And I am not a lawyer and these are just my musings; maybe I'm missing a loophole; blah blah blah.
I'm curious: what do you use the current explorer interface for that would have to be relearned on a ribbon?
I'm pretty sure the only reason I ever go there is to turn off "hide file extensions for known file types". Everything else happens by expanding out the tree, drag and drop, right click context menus, ctrl-x / ctrl-c / ctrl-v, etc.. I doubt if I'd even notice the switch to a ribbon (unless it made something much better).
Is he saying 100 or more tabs total, or 100 or more tabs each?
I would say 3000 really is an edge-case. Yes, they should be testing that sort of thing because it might reveal problems that can happen earlier by playing with probabilities, but it should be low priority.
100 tabs across 30 windows, though, is very large but not absurd (unless you're on low-end hardware).
Argumentation is not your strength. Your argument has this form:
You:
1. You're too stupid to be like me.
2. I'm better than people like you.
He/she counter-argues.
You:
1. I win the argument (implied: because you are too stupid to understand your own argument).
2. Irrelevant statement that shows you misses the point.
3. Casual, incredible arrogance, combined with strawman attacks.
4. BTW, I win the argument (implied: because you are too stupid to understand your own argument).
Their most frequent ambassadors on the web are so incredibly arrogant, yet they frequently fail to display intelligence in their facile arguments, instead trying to overwhelm their opponent by unnecessarily and, frankly, inappropriately using uncommon words for common ideas. "Cognitively strong" should very rarely be used instead of "smart", especially if you're going to use the phrase "cognitive faculties" in the very next sentence. One use of cognitive might make your writing more varied and interesting per Orwell's sixth rule; two in as many sentences indicates that your active vocabulary is eclectic rather than large.
I don't want to be like that, and that's what I see of that group, ergo I do not want to be in that group. I fear I am being a bit rude here in giving a critique of one random sentence on the Internet, but in my defence, I find it very, very, very irritating -- one might say, "astonishingly annoying" -- to see people try to convince others not on the basis of sound reasoning but on their own unrelated and ephemeral achievements. That's what feeds anti-intellectualism.
This is a large part of why Mensa's membership is fewer than 1% of the 2% of the world population that qualifies for Mensa. I'll grant that a significant portion of the world population does not have access to Mensa, but then you have to grant that well over 2% of the population can actually qualify for Mensa, given that you can just keep taking tests until you pass and there is significant variance in test results, especially when you're measuring people who are already near the second standard deviation. Most people who can join don't want to. That's okay, but it means that there's basically a 2% chance that anybody not in Mensa, complaining about Mensa, is eligible for Mensa. It's intellectually lazy and fallacious to automatically bucket anybody who disagrees with you as an outsider anti-intellectual who just doesn't understand the struggles of being smart. And yes, the top 2% can be anti-intellectual, but being anti-Mensa is not the same as being anti-intellectual. Not to mention that you don't have to be even near the top 2% to be an intellectual.
While I agree that there's lots of types of intelligence, that doesn't mean that puzzle solving and number crunching isn't a thing worth studying. Like if they asked for people who could pitch the fastest fastball, it's accurate to say that there's a lot of other ways to be a great pitcher, but that doesn't mean that fastball speed isn't a thing that can be looked at.
As for whether gifted artists would score well on those tests -- I'm not really familiar with those tests, since I'm not American, but I think that depends on the type of artist. And, for that matter, what you think is "incredibly gifted", art being highly subjective compared to puzzle-solving and number-crunching.
What's a "sports genius"? An athlete? Somebody who can strategize in team sports? Somebody who memorized sports statistics?
All five of the major browsers are built by big companies, with hundreds of employees. Mozilla corporation, easily the "smallest", made 43.1 million dollars of income on 91.3 million of revenue in 2009. What niche browser do you favour?
Chrome is the only one that fits number 2 complaint (that I know of; it's been a while since I used Safari or Opera extensively).
Dragon Age 2 was easier for me to get through once I started thinking of it as a Board Game converted to a Video Game, rather than the sequel to "Dragon Age: Baldur's Gate Spinoff".
What's critical is to what degree risking others' lives with a car is a crime. The fact that they actually died is important in establishing to what degree this behaviour is risking the lives of others'.