Thanks for the info. I had not had time to think about dealing with the upgrade to 11.04 (I only read there were some bumps w/ 11.04 and I never bothered customizing the user desktops before), but after reading your post, I might do it this weekend.
My wife's been using Ubuntu since 9.10. She's been basically happy with it, except for the few times she's had trouble getting mp3s from Amazon. But there's no way she'd know to switch the desktop, and I have told her not to upgrade to 11.04 to avoid dealing with it for the time being.
I noticed recently that some of my posts have been modded down immediately as "overrated". I'm not talking about posts which are potentially controversial, either. I don't know if it's widespread, but I get the feeling there are a number of kids with time on their hands downmodding anything they feel like. Time to spend more effort metamoderating, I suppose. But I'm busy, unlike 20-somethings living in mom's basement, so...tehy win the interwebs?
You are very right about this. But consider that the Chinese government has been telling its citizens to acquire gold for several years now, and they've done as they were told. It's in preparation, I believe, for decoupling the yuan from the dollar. I am shocked few people are aware of this, because when that happens, the pent-up domestic demand in China will have a chance to be met, and a large middle class will emerge there in a few year (much like the USA after WWII). In the US, the dollar will become worthless, and we will regress economically about 5 decades' worth.
Now that I've logged in, I would like to add to my previous post. If you are paying attention to what the current trends are, Flash is dying quickly, and javascript/HTML5 is coming on strong. If you're doing web stuff, and you don't know this, you should reconsider what you're putting your time into learning.
Yeah, but no one is FORCING consumers to buy Apple products. Someone who gives you a bad deal that you know about ahead of time isn't necessarily evil. Someone who takes a bad deal they know about ahead of time is foolish.
Yeah, that I would largely agree with. Lobbying so that farmers have to pay you a royalty because you engineered crops which will naturally spread their DNA through normal, natural means would qualify in my book as evil.
I'm getting tired of the "X is evil" accusation. Apple is not torturing people, stealing food from children, or poisoning food supplies. What they're doing is responding to the ridiculous legal system which has made it profitable to spend time gaming the system instead of building better products. It's ridiculous, it's a nuisance, and it's non productive, and in some ways is certainly immoral or unethical (trying to increase ones' advantage through underhanded means), but I think it falls short of evil.
I don't respect Apple's actions in this matter, but I think the problem is that the legal system has been so horribly twisted by bad law, bad judges, and parasitic lawyers that it is incentivizing this sort of behavior. And I think to avoid this kind of ridiculousness in the future, you really need to overhaul the legal system, wipe out many precedents, and radically reform the way laws are made (both from activist judges who legislate from the bench, and from legitimate legislative entities such as Congress). I would also add that I think intentionally warping the legal system might qualify as evil behavior. But as far as a I know, Apple doesn't have a specific lobbying arm in DC (yet).
All that said, I have no idea how this could be accomplished. It seems there is little hope for getting a decent Congress that's not bought by the highest bidders, and the judges usually aren't much better.
But understanding that distinction is important. People say "democracy" and think it gives them a moral pass on being tyrannical when they're in the majority. Right or left, it doesn't matter, it is critical to understand that democracy is still not self rule, and that was part of the element I was questioning in OP's comments.
Are you defending the court briefs, or simply stating fact? Law ought not be complex. It is an affront to citizens that lawyers are required for simple matters of basic rights.
I recently got into a heated debate with someone who claimed to be a supporter of the democratic process. Then I started asking him why, and he indicated something along the lines of "it's legitimate because it's self rule". So I continued and asked if it was self rule when military action was taken and I didn't want it to be, or the RIAA took some action to get a law passed he didn't agree with, and so on. And eventually he admitted that he liked democracy when it worked, but when it didn't, he'd want to compel people to do what he thought was right.
Point being, even those who believe they believe in self-rule and personal human rights often don't. If I wanted to withhold taxes from some government undertaking, according to him, I'm not free to do so, and the fact that self-rule is violated be damned, because he wanted that project to happen. Such as publicly funded health care. Ask someone if it's right to compel one person to work for another's benefit, and they will say no. But that is what welfare programs are. That it is done collectively doesn't change that, it only masks it.
What do you think of that? Do you think it's possible to respect human rights to life, liberty, and property, and have a government? Full disclosure: I am a radical libertarian, and this is all part of a socratic dialogue to make you clearly state your definition of undeniable human rights. Personally, I believe very strongly those rights exist, and in my right to defend mine, but I often find most people do not.
Is Chicano derogatory? The other terms I feel I have an idea of (Latino -> European, Mexican-American->Italian-American, Mexican->Italian), not that one, though.
Mod this guy up! It's funny that the PC folks are so damned ignorant of the fact that color/ethnic prejudice is so rampant in Mexico: I worked with a Mexican guy who bore no physical similarities to my underclass neighbors and asked him straight out if he was ethnically Spanish. He was almost offended that it was a question (as he was "ethnically pure"). He also offered a lot of insight into the "thinking of the underclass", if I may paraphrase him. Basically, Spanish and Aztec in Mexico are where White and Black were in this country decades ago. It's nothing like many of the island countries where colorism exists but is only vestigial.
I didn't find that to be the case generally in my town, as most of these folks had decent paying jobs (I'm guessing even the illegals got at least $200/week based on rent rates, etc., living 10 to a house at $1k/month), and have seen them often with live poultry. The owner's brother and I were drinking one night and they made me some delicious fresh refried beans and peppers. None of them were starving, that's for darn sure. FYI this is in the suburbs of Philadelphia, PA, USA, where there are many large immigrant populations, each town with its own flavor. I suspect where I lived was a better place than most.
Yeah, because that's how the Mexican owner referred to them. Have you ever lived in a predominantly Mexican neighborhood, full of illegals? Didn't think so.
Well, the guy who described them to me as "illegals" was the owner of the house, and he was himself a first generation Mexican immigrant (who liked to take advantage of female illegals because they were easy to get rid of when he got tired of them). I don't have hangups about it because I lived in that neighborhood for 6 years and yes, the Mexicans will refer to people here illegally as "illegals". And it's well established that there is a real phenomenon of anchor babies, whether we like the term or not. But apparently it's not OK for me to use those terms since someone modded me "troll"...
It's funny how the people who actually live in a diverse neighborhood and live peacefully with different people and use terms which are acceptable there are suddenly perceived as intolerant or prejudiced the minute we use the same terms in an environment which is not "diverse".
Sorry for all the quotes here, as I don't usually do that, but it seems appropriate.
A funny hybrid of these scenarios came up when I saw the little Mexican (I mean REALLY Mexican, most likely anchor babies as I know several of the moms were illegals) kids next door with Taco Bell. It made me laugh, because essentially Taco Bell is an awful version of fresh Mexican food you'd generally not choose if you had the ease of access to the real deal in that town. Yet it's still Mexican(ish) and convenient, and cheap, so they got both sides of the deal.
Ok, AC, I apologized to GP for misunderstanding him, but WTF? What would be the point of simulating the vibrations from a bari sax? Wouldn't it make more sense to have an actual instrument? All the physical things that happen provide that extra level of uncertainty and expressive flexibility...they will never be 100% recreated because there is simply no point. Past a certain level of mimicry, it will be as hard to play and as expensive to make as the actual thing, so the actual thing (as opposed to a digital reproduction) will be so much cheaper there is no economic reason to try and simulate it more accurately. Thus, it won't happen.
Yes, it does change key weight. The damper is lifted when you strike the key. When you use the pedal, the pedal lifts it, meaning that work isn't done when striking the key. This is most obvious if you're playing soft passages and trying to emphasize certain notes over others.
My bad, I thought you were saying it was a replacement. I agree with you that digital stuff is an excellent substitute for many, or even most, situations.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info. I had not had time to think about dealing with the upgrade to 11.04 (I only read there were some bumps w/ 11.04 and I never bothered customizing the user desktops before), but after reading your post, I might do it this weekend.
What OS does your wife use?
My wife's been using Ubuntu since 9.10. She's been basically happy with it, except for the few times she's had trouble getting mp3s from Amazon. But there's no way she'd know to switch the desktop, and I have told her not to upgrade to 11.04 to avoid dealing with it for the time being.
I noticed recently that some of my posts have been modded down immediately as "overrated". I'm not talking about posts which are potentially controversial, either. I don't know if it's widespread, but I get the feeling there are a number of kids with time on their hands downmodding anything they feel like. Time to spend more effort metamoderating, I suppose. But I'm busy, unlike 20-somethings living in mom's basement, so...tehy win the interwebs?
You are very right about this. But consider that the Chinese government has been telling its citizens to acquire gold for several years now, and they've done as they were told. It's in preparation, I believe, for decoupling the yuan from the dollar. I am shocked few people are aware of this, because when that happens, the pent-up domestic demand in China will have a chance to be met, and a large middle class will emerge there in a few year (much like the USA after WWII). In the US, the dollar will become worthless, and we will regress economically about 5 decades' worth.
Now that I've logged in, I would like to add to my previous post. If you are paying attention to what the current trends are, Flash is dying quickly, and javascript/HTML5 is coming on strong. If you're doing web stuff, and you don't know this, you should reconsider what you're putting your time into learning.
Yeah, but no one is FORCING consumers to buy Apple products. Someone who gives you a bad deal that you know about ahead of time isn't necessarily evil. Someone who takes a bad deal they know about ahead of time is foolish.
Who forced you to buy into the Apple ecosystem? Nobody.
Yeah, that I would largely agree with. Lobbying so that farmers have to pay you a royalty because you engineered crops which will naturally spread their DNA through normal, natural means would qualify in my book as evil.
I'm getting tired of the "X is evil" accusation. Apple is not torturing people, stealing food from children, or poisoning food supplies. What they're doing is responding to the ridiculous legal system which has made it profitable to spend time gaming the system instead of building better products. It's ridiculous, it's a nuisance, and it's non productive, and in some ways is certainly immoral or unethical (trying to increase ones' advantage through underhanded means), but I think it falls short of evil.
I don't respect Apple's actions in this matter, but I think the problem is that the legal system has been so horribly twisted by bad law, bad judges, and parasitic lawyers that it is incentivizing this sort of behavior. And I think to avoid this kind of ridiculousness in the future, you really need to overhaul the legal system, wipe out many precedents, and radically reform the way laws are made (both from activist judges who legislate from the bench, and from legitimate legislative entities such as Congress). I would also add that I think intentionally warping the legal system might qualify as evil behavior. But as far as a I know, Apple doesn't have a specific lobbying arm in DC (yet).
All that said, I have no idea how this could be accomplished. It seems there is little hope for getting a decent Congress that's not bought by the highest bidders, and the judges usually aren't much better.
But understanding that distinction is important. People say "democracy" and think it gives them a moral pass on being tyrannical when they're in the majority. Right or left, it doesn't matter, it is critical to understand that democracy is still not self rule, and that was part of the element I was questioning in OP's comments.
Are you defending the court briefs, or simply stating fact? Law ought not be complex. It is an affront to citizens that lawyers are required for simple matters of basic rights.
You'd be right where you are. We have no measurable impact on the political process whatsoever.
Nothing elective about it. Only candidates the two parties approve of can make it to the national ballots except in extraordinary cases.
I recently got into a heated debate with someone who claimed to be a supporter of the democratic process. Then I started asking him why, and he indicated something along the lines of "it's legitimate because it's self rule". So I continued and asked if it was self rule when military action was taken and I didn't want it to be, or the RIAA took some action to get a law passed he didn't agree with, and so on. And eventually he admitted that he liked democracy when it worked, but when it didn't, he'd want to compel people to do what he thought was right.
Point being, even those who believe they believe in self-rule and personal human rights often don't. If I wanted to withhold taxes from some government undertaking, according to him, I'm not free to do so, and the fact that self-rule is violated be damned, because he wanted that project to happen. Such as publicly funded health care. Ask someone if it's right to compel one person to work for another's benefit, and they will say no. But that is what welfare programs are. That it is done collectively doesn't change that, it only masks it.
What do you think of that? Do you think it's possible to respect human rights to life, liberty, and property, and have a government? Full disclosure: I am a radical libertarian, and this is all part of a socratic dialogue to make you clearly state your definition of undeniable human rights. Personally, I believe very strongly those rights exist, and in my right to defend mine, but I often find most people do not.
Is Chicano derogatory? The other terms I feel I have an idea of (Latino -> European, Mexican-American->Italian-American, Mexican->Italian), not that one, though.
Mod this guy up! It's funny that the PC folks are so damned ignorant of the fact that color/ethnic prejudice is so rampant in Mexico: I worked with a Mexican guy who bore no physical similarities to my underclass neighbors and asked him straight out if he was ethnically Spanish. He was almost offended that it was a question (as he was "ethnically pure"). He also offered a lot of insight into the "thinking of the underclass", if I may paraphrase him. Basically, Spanish and Aztec in Mexico are where White and Black were in this country decades ago. It's nothing like many of the island countries where colorism exists but is only vestigial.
I didn't find that to be the case generally in my town, as most of these folks had decent paying jobs (I'm guessing even the illegals got at least $200/week based on rent rates, etc., living 10 to a house at $1k/month), and have seen them often with live poultry. The owner's brother and I were drinking one night and they made me some delicious fresh refried beans and peppers. None of them were starving, that's for darn sure. FYI this is in the suburbs of Philadelphia, PA, USA, where there are many large immigrant populations, each town with its own flavor. I suspect where I lived was a better place than most.
Yeah, because that's how the Mexican owner referred to them. Have you ever lived in a predominantly Mexican neighborhood, full of illegals? Didn't think so.
Well, the guy who described them to me as "illegals" was the owner of the house, and he was himself a first generation Mexican immigrant (who liked to take advantage of female illegals because they were easy to get rid of when he got tired of them). I don't have hangups about it because I lived in that neighborhood for 6 years and yes, the Mexicans will refer to people here illegally as "illegals". And it's well established that there is a real phenomenon of anchor babies, whether we like the term or not. But apparently it's not OK for me to use those terms since someone modded me "troll"...
It's funny how the people who actually live in a diverse neighborhood and live peacefully with different people and use terms which are acceptable there are suddenly perceived as intolerant or prejudiced the minute we use the same terms in an environment which is not "diverse".
Sorry for all the quotes here, as I don't usually do that, but it seems appropriate.
A funny hybrid of these scenarios came up when I saw the little Mexican (I mean REALLY Mexican, most likely anchor babies as I know several of the moms were illegals) kids next door with Taco Bell. It made me laugh, because essentially Taco Bell is an awful version of fresh Mexican food you'd generally not choose if you had the ease of access to the real deal in that town. Yet it's still Mexican(ish) and convenient, and cheap, so they got both sides of the deal.
Citation? Your statement is plausible, but unsupported, and therefore worthless.
Ok, AC, I apologized to GP for misunderstanding him, but WTF? What would be the point of simulating the vibrations from a bari sax? Wouldn't it make more sense to have an actual instrument? All the physical things that happen provide that extra level of uncertainty and expressive flexibility...they will never be 100% recreated because there is simply no point. Past a certain level of mimicry, it will be as hard to play and as expensive to make as the actual thing, so the actual thing (as opposed to a digital reproduction) will be so much cheaper there is no economic reason to try and simulate it more accurately. Thus, it won't happen.
Yes, it does change key weight. The damper is lifted when you strike the key. When you use the pedal, the pedal lifts it, meaning that work isn't done when striking the key. This is most obvious if you're playing soft passages and trying to emphasize certain notes over others.
My bad, I thought you were saying it was a replacement. I agree with you that digital stuff is an excellent substitute for many, or even most, situations.