i don't know what studies show, but i have directly seen the difference between the effectiveness of mouse v. keyboard.
this summer, i scanned over 4200 photos withPhotoshop. i would scan the photo, flip it, resize it, and apply a scratch filter. the first few days, using the menus, i got less than a hundred done. then i realized i could hit alt+ii to get the image size window, ctrl+ei9 for rotate clockwise, and ctrl+ei0 to rotate counterclockwise (IIRC). this saved me an amazing amount of time, believe it or not. toward the end of the project, i was doing several hundred per day.
alright, i have really basic question (and i'm not trolling, for real).
from microsoft's point of view, how could they allow people to sell "used" software? when you sell a guitar, you don't have it anymore. only one person can have the guitar. with software, i can still use it after selling it to you. i've essentially made a copy of it and sold it to you.
at the same time, if i bought the thing i want to be able to sell it. help!
unfortunately, he implies that government is the only source of "the big mass of stuff that allows us to get about our lives". industry has provided us with most of the things that we use in our lives. anybody REALLY want a US Gov. brand car?
i once read (it may have been thoreau) "democracy is tyranny by the majority." America is not a democracy, it is a REPUBLIC (rule by law). objective law can be established to preserve everyone's rights and liberty. in a democracy, the majority could establish any nutty law. unfortunately, i fear that we're approaching not only a democracy, but a democracy ruled by a tiny percentage of the population (congress).
this is almost correct. the reality is that you like chicken, he doesn't. that is what is "correct". since chicken itself is neither correct nor incorrect, then neither liking it or disliking it is. not all things have correctness, some are just opinions, and attaching "truth" to these things soils the idea of an honest interpretation of reality.
i think it would be foolish to believe that, for example, bacteria think. yes, they are made of cells (a distinction previously discussed to be a dubious measure of life), but other than that they are just responding, self-replicating little buggers that are nowhere near thinking.
now, i don't think fire's alive either, but i am saying that the definition of life isn't so easy to define.
1. i love books too, as i love horses. doesn't mean we still ride them to work.
2. electronic paper IS something you can hold in your hands. it has all the advantages (clarity far better than CRTs, etc.) without the disadvantages (weight, size).
3. my favorite part: "Technology can do wonderful things, but it will never replace genuine human communication." i could make all manner of clever comments about "genuine communication" and its relation to technology, but i find most humorous the irony that this was a post on slashdot...
no one should be "protected from themselves", especially by force of law. if a person invests his money (or any other asset), the profit or failure should fall on his shoulders.
it strikes me as paradoxical that the line for a company to pay for time vs. buy themselves a new machine is so low (roughly a nickel/hr). No one would sell time for a nickel/hr, but companies still pursue this as an alternative to buying more boxes. perhaps i'm missing something, but this seems like an economical oddity.
unfortunately, your argument does not hold, for one cannot prove a negative. this would be like saying, "you have no proof ghosts don't exist". atheists hold that there is no god, for they see no proof for his existence. the person making the affirmation bears the burden of proof, and all religions affirm that god exists, so they must prove this.
however, you are correct in saying our constitution has worked pretty well so far. unfortunately, little things like "in god we trust" and "one nation under god" grate on the nerves of atheists in a government that supposedly protects all piritual beliefs, including the right not to believe in any gods.
one must wonder how much these candidates actually know about the "filtering software". They seem just to be making grandiose claims about what "we" should do to "protect" our children. I know Gore didn't actually claim to invent the internet, but he would like everyone to think he's the hip and happenin' candidate who's with-it enough to talk about the "Inter-Net" and how we can keep out kids away from the dangers on the "information Superhighway." I think the candidates are just playing a card here, the Tech card.
most people know as much about the internet as Bush and Gore do, so you take the common assumption that the net is half porn, mixed with the common perception of the effectiveness of "filtering softeware", and say you are for the latter and against the former, and *PooF!*, you've taken a stand!
it's easy to say these things without actually knowing what goes into making them happen, and for the most part no one (except/.ers, of course) will call their bluff.
this might sound like a flame, but good god, man, say something. All you're doing is pointing out a nuance of the simsons' world as if it were a bad point. The fact that no one ages is just an aspect of the show, not a detriment. It's like saying "oo, apples, they're so RED these days..." If you have a valid complaint about the simpsons (which may exist but are rare), then make it, but don't try to be cute.
its a diabolical plot to kill all bug eating animals. The animal eats the robot, then the robot deposites a small but lethal dose of poison once inside. The robot then drills its way to the outside of the animal. It falls to the ground to be eaten by another bug-eating animal and the viscious cycle begins anew...
winding a robot so small would lead to many frustrated engineers... "Larry, go wind the 'bots." "sure boss. All right, now where's the screw..? Boss, do we have a magnifying glass?" "by the microscope." "Oh. ok... here we go... winding, and..damn, i gort a cramp! Boss, my hand..!"
and so on. winding is silly; not as a power source but instead in its application.
Slashdot Mirror
this summer, i scanned over 4200 photos withPhotoshop. i would scan the photo, flip it, resize it, and apply a scratch filter. the first few days, using the menus, i got less than a hundred done. then i realized i could hit alt+ii to get the image size window, ctrl+ei9 for rotate clockwise, and ctrl+ei0 to rotate counterclockwise (IIRC). this saved me an amazing amount of time, believe it or not. toward the end of the project, i was doing several hundred per day.
perhaps this is a silly question, but if the MMOG is open source, wouldn't this open the gates for a ton of cheating?
from microsoft's point of view, how could they allow people to sell "used" software? when you sell a guitar, you don't have it anymore. only one person can have the guitar. with software, i can still use it after selling it to you. i've essentially made a copy of it and sold it to you.
at the same time, if i bought the thing i want to be able to sell it. help!
unfortunately, he implies that government is the only source of "the big mass of stuff that allows us to get about our lives". industry has provided us with most of the things that we use in our lives. anybody REALLY want a US Gov. brand car?
i once read (it may have been thoreau) "democracy is tyranny by the majority." America is not a democracy, it is a REPUBLIC (rule by law). objective law can be established to preserve everyone's rights and liberty. in a democracy, the majority could establish any nutty law. unfortunately, i fear that we're approaching not only a democracy, but a democracy ruled by a tiny percentage of the population (congress).
don't mix the sheep and the oranges.
--------------------------
now, i don't think fire's alive either, but i am saying that the definition of life isn't so easy to define.
--------------------------
1. i love books too, as i love horses. doesn't mean we still ride them to work.
2. electronic paper IS something you can hold in your hands. it has all the advantages (clarity far better than CRTs, etc.) without the disadvantages (weight, size).
3. my favorite part: "Technology can do wonderful things, but it will never replace genuine human communication." i could make all manner of clever comments about "genuine communication" and its relation to technology, but i find most humorous the irony that this was a post on slashdot...
--------------------------
--------------------------
-said by your favorite ignorant politician
--------------------------
--------------------------
it strikes me as paradoxical that the line for a company to pay for time vs. buy themselves a new machine is so low (roughly a nickel/hr). No one would sell time for a nickel/hr, but companies still pursue this as an alternative to buying more boxes. perhaps i'm missing something, but this seems like an economical oddity.
however, you are correct in saying our constitution has worked pretty well so far. unfortunately, little things like "in god we trust" and "one nation under god" grate on the nerves of atheists in a government that supposedly protects all piritual beliefs, including the right not to believe in any gods.
most people know as much about the internet as Bush and Gore do, so you take the common assumption that the net is half porn, mixed with the common perception of the effectiveness of "filtering softeware", and say you are for the latter and against the former, and *PooF!*, you've taken a stand!
it's easy to say these things without actually knowing what goes into making them happen, and for the most part no one (except /.ers, of course) will call their bluff.
------------
So, when they have the screenshot of the JFK assassination, will the CIA be hidding next to the Mafia on the grassy knoll?
this might sound like a flame, but good god, man, say something. All you're doing is pointing out a nuance of the simsons' world as if it were a bad point. The fact that no one ages is just an aspect of the show, not a detriment. It's like saying "oo, apples, they're so RED these days..." If you have a valid complaint about the simpsons (which may exist but are rare), then make it, but don't try to be cute.
its a diabolical plot to kill all bug eating animals. The animal eats the robot, then the robot deposites a small but lethal dose of poison once inside. The robot then drills its way to the outside of the animal. It falls to the ground to be eaten by another bug-eating animal and the viscious cycle begins anew...
winding a robot so small would lead to many frustrated engineers... ..damn, i gort a cramp! Boss, my hand..!"
"Larry, go wind the 'bots."
"sure boss. All right, now where's the screw..? Boss, do we have a magnifying glass?"
"by the microscope."
"Oh. ok... here we go... winding, and
and so on.
winding is silly; not as a power source but instead in its application.