To be perfectly honest, I'm not convinced that a menubar is even a good UI design in the first place. Chrome and IE7+ are just doing what should have been done a while ago: get rid of a space-wasting and confusing widget.
IE7 and the new Opera make the menu bar optional. That would even be fine. Chrome completely omits it. I won't use it.
None of this would be happening if working with stem cells and bioengineering proper was legalized at large.
Hey asshole. She was injected with her own stem cells. Despite what you're suggesting, there are no barriers to adult stem cell research/therepy. For people to be promising cures today, it's biotech snake oil. Nothing more.
Since this was a flaw in AT&T's security, despite Gawker's attempt to make it Apple's fault, why the hell would or should it affect Apple's image?
Because Apple chose their exclusive partner poorly. If your business partner does something boneheaded like this, I'm going to think twice before I do any business with you.
It's absolutely true. It's unbelievably frustrating. No one noticed when I placed in our school's science fair, or when I made Dean's List in College, or when I get another college Degree. But everyone of them knows when Jermaine is supposed to get released from prison.
The worst is that one gets accused of "selling out" or self-hatred because they reject the anti-intellectual current and work to excel in life.
I'm sure plenty of/.ers are more than familiar with the general anti-intellectual sentiment found in many schools, especially among the 'cool kids' and young-ish age groups.
Try growing up in the black community. There's a real pressure to "keep it real" and remain "authentic" by rejecting intellectual pursuits.
This is still a punishment on blacks, asians, catholics and muslims. Its a Stormfront wet dream.
Don't forget latinos. I suppose you could lump most of them in with the Catholics, but most European Catholics(the ones that are left) aren't quite as prolific reproducers as the latinos.
This idea that somehow any new regulation makes the developed markets any less competitive is a crock. In terms of dollars and cents, it's the high labor cost and the gall that workers in the developed economies have to, like, you know, expect a gradual improvement in their standards of living.
I call shenanigans. In the Western world, the standard of living has been pretty stagnant for a generation. I make a decent living. I had to get three college degrees to get here. My grandfather had just a high school diploma and he earned enough of a living to buy a house, raise several children and retire at 62. Two of those things are reasonable expectations for me.
He 1970s and unilateral environmental regulation virtually destroyed American Industry. This is just going to put the final nail in the coffin.
It's not hypocritical at all. We burned coal before we had the ability to make nuclear, wind and solar power plants. The hard work is done. Third world countries can build wind farms and deploy solar panels just like we can. These technological innovations were made while we were burning coal. Oddly enough, it's the environmentalists who are standing in the way of further deployment of cleaner power sources.
(do you really want to compete with a barefooted construction worker at 14h - 1$/day basis?)
Even if I were 20 years old, my answer would still be no. But it's immaterial. Construction is a local endeavor. That $1/day laborer can't work here for that.
Your arguments however show the typical black/white thinking of many conservatives with their disdain for ecological ideas "if we can not pollute and consume like before we will be depressed and the others will gain".
You misunderstand my disdain. I think that conservation and recycling are fantastic ideas. I think we should all do it. My problem is with international forces that do not have my best interests at heart pretending that they're forcing something on me for the good of mankind when the clear motive is my destruction.
From their perspective, we got where we got by burning our resources; if we don't let them do the same, it's Da Man keeping them down.
So what? They're developing nations. If the rest of the world says so, they have to abide anyway. I say this not because I think that the "world community" should be pressuring sovereign nations on how to conduct their economic business but to prove a point. If it's wrong to force them, it's wrong to force me.
Now, could you explain what motivation the "socialist plotters" have to exclude the developing world?
Fair question. Restricting emissions in the industrialized world will have a negative impact on heavy industry, manufacturing is the biggest example. It will immediately result in leading countries not being able to compete on the world market with "developing" countries. The amount of emissions won't be changed by much in the long term because all of the emissions that are coming from currently industrialized nations will in short order end up coming from developing ones. The clear result will be to depress the economies of developed nations while inflating the economies of developing ones, when the outcome is that clearly predictably it's not unreasonable to think it's the intended one.
China has an enormous capacity for industrial production but somehow China and India were exempt from Kyoto.
I'm in the Pittsburgh area. You can get a world class education here, pretty much regardless of the field. If you're into medicine there's Pitt. If you're into the law, there's Pitt and Duquesne. If you're into business, there's Point Park. If you're into CS, there's CMU. All within 15 miles of where I live. Why would I need to leave?
I understand completely, I was unaware of the sect until I was in my mid 20s. I took a world religions class and Baha'i was one of the faiths that we covered. Though I do not share their beliefs, I respect their balance of tradition and modernity.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's not optional, I'll be sticking with FF3.x. It'll be like all of those people who still use IE6.
LK
Why do they need to provide a menu bar?
Because some people want it.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not convinced that a menubar is even a good UI design in the first place. Chrome and IE7+ are just doing what should have been done a while ago: get rid of a space-wasting and confusing widget.
IE7 and the new Opera make the menu bar optional. That would even be fine. Chrome completely omits it. I won't use it.
LK
I'm an adult, I prefer to read.
Maybe you still wear your garanimals, but I choose my own clothes.
LK
It's not that I can't, it's that I won't.
I'm a heterosexual, that doesn't mean that I can't have sex with another man. It means that I don't want to and I won't.
LK
What do you need the menu bar for that the two menu icons in Chrome can't provide?
Those two icons do not provide a menu bar. It's been a standard part of a GUI for 25 years.
LK
None of this would be happening if working with stem cells and bioengineering proper was legalized at large.
Hey asshole. She was injected with her own stem cells. Despite what you're suggesting, there are no barriers to adult stem cell research/therepy. For people to be promising cures today, it's biotech snake oil. Nothing more.
LK
Let me known when they figure out how to add a menu bar. Until then, I'll be sticking with Firefox.
LK
Since this was a flaw in AT&T's security, despite Gawker's attempt to make it Apple's fault, why the hell would or should it affect Apple's image?
Because Apple chose their exclusive partner poorly. If your business partner does something boneheaded like this, I'm going to think twice before I do any business with you.
LK
I just emailed him a link to the Wikipedia page on the Streisand Effect.
These are his email addresses.
rs2982@att.com
randall.stephenson@att.com
I wonder if they'll respond to me too.
LK
It's absolutely true. It's unbelievably frustrating. No one noticed when I placed in our school's science fair, or when I made Dean's List in College, or when I get another college Degree. But everyone of them knows when Jermaine is supposed to get released from prison.
The worst is that one gets accused of "selling out" or self-hatred because they reject the anti-intellectual current and work to excel in life.
LK
I'm sure plenty of /.ers are more than familiar with the general anti-intellectual sentiment found in many schools, especially among the 'cool kids' and young-ish age groups.
Try growing up in the black community. There's a real pressure to "keep it real" and remain "authentic" by rejecting intellectual pursuits.
LK
Before I can dispute you, I'm going to need to ask you to define "most industrialized nation on the planet".
LK
Heroin addicts don't really get high like they used to, they just get well.
LK
This is still a punishment on blacks, asians, catholics and muslims. Its a Stormfront wet dream.
Don't forget latinos. I suppose you could lump most of them in with the Catholics, but most European Catholics(the ones that are left) aren't quite as prolific reproducers as the latinos.
LK
This idea that somehow any new regulation makes the developed markets any less competitive is a crock. In terms of dollars and cents, it's the high labor cost and the gall that workers in the developed economies have to, like, you know, expect a gradual improvement in their standards of living.
I call shenanigans. In the Western world, the standard of living has been pretty stagnant for a generation. I make a decent living. I had to get three college degrees to get here. My grandfather had just a high school diploma and he earned enough of a living to buy a house, raise several children and retire at 62. Two of those things are reasonable expectations for me.
He 1970s and unilateral environmental regulation virtually destroyed American Industry. This is just going to put the final nail in the coffin.
LK
It's not hypocritical at all. We burned coal before we had the ability to make nuclear, wind and solar power plants. The hard work is done. Third world countries can build wind farms and deploy solar panels just like we can. These technological innovations were made while we were burning coal. Oddly enough, it's the environmentalists who are standing in the way of further deployment of cleaner power sources.
LK
You stopped reading too soon. I could explain it to you; but if you can't be bothered to comprehend my whole post, I can't be bothered to clue you in.
(do you really want to compete with a barefooted construction worker at 14h - 1$/day basis?)
Even if I were 20 years old, my answer would still be no. But it's immaterial. Construction is a local endeavor. That $1/day laborer can't work here for that.
Your arguments however show the typical black/white thinking of many conservatives with their disdain for ecological ideas "if we can not pollute and consume like before we will be depressed and the others will gain".
You misunderstand my disdain. I think that conservation and recycling are fantastic ideas. I think we should all do it. My problem is with international forces that do not have my best interests at heart pretending that they're forcing something on me for the good of mankind when the clear motive is my destruction.
LK
Thank you for proving my point.
In your worldview, success is a criminal offense to be punished.
From their perspective, we got where we got by burning our resources; if we don't let them do the same, it's Da Man keeping them down.
So what? They're developing nations. If the rest of the world says so, they have to abide anyway. I say this not because I think that the "world community" should be pressuring sovereign nations on how to conduct their economic business but to prove a point. If it's wrong to force them, it's wrong to force me.
Now, could you explain what motivation the "socialist plotters" have to exclude the developing world?
Fair question. Restricting emissions in the industrialized world will have a negative impact on heavy industry, manufacturing is the biggest example. It will immediately result in leading countries not being able to compete on the world market with "developing" countries. The amount of emissions won't be changed by much in the long term because all of the emissions that are coming from currently industrialized nations will in short order end up coming from developing ones. The clear result will be to depress the economies of developed nations while inflating the economies of developing ones, when the outcome is that clearly predictably it's not unreasonable to think it's the intended one.
China has an enormous capacity for industrial production but somehow China and India were exempt from Kyoto.
LK
I don't think there's any point being scared of redbaiting - the US right already thinks climate change legislation is a socialist plot.
If it's not, then why do all of the major schemes exempt the "developing world"?
LK
For $105, as soon as I get the chance I'm all over that.
LK
I'm in the Pittsburgh area. You can get a world class education here, pretty much regardless of the field. If you're into medicine there's Pitt. If you're into the law, there's Pitt and Duquesne. If you're into business, there's Point Park. If you're into CS, there's CMU. All within 15 miles of where I live. Why would I need to leave?
LK
I understand completely, I was unaware of the sect until I was in my mid 20s. I took a world religions class and Baha'i was one of the faiths that we covered. Though I do not share their beliefs, I respect their balance of tradition and modernity.
LK
Unfortunately people hang onto established beliefs even when they are found to be untrue: thus, today's religions are out of harmony with science.
You are incorrect in your assertion.
LK