1) conversations. Instead of every email being separate and singular, Gmail groups together replies into conversations.
LOL. What? I've been using "conversations" aka "threads" in my mail reader since Netscape Communicator and usenet readers from before that. They're actually better than google's screwed-up "conversation" view, because nothing is automatically hidden and you get to see the actual structure of the replies and not just a flat view.
The rest of your commentary is true enough (and tagging is a godsend for a lazy archiver like myself).
The problem with Chrom{e,ium} s that it's terribly bad at resource-heavy web pages and at more than ~30 tabs. Anecdote: On/b/ the other day there was a sticky soliciting banners with 6k+ replies. Firefox hangs for ~2min trying to load it, complains of scripts taking too long and asks me what to do. If I say "Stop script" I get the page immediately, if I say "Continue" it keeps loading and eventually gives me the page. Chrome? Tries to load for about 30 seconds and gives me a crash message for every tab pointing to that domain. Yeah, with no extensions loaded on Chrome (FF has a ton, of course). This kind of resilience makes FF a winner even if it's slow.
Sorry, I thought you were saying corbet had enabled a "hide by default, show only if the individual user chooses to" setting that applied to Florien's account. I see that I was mistaken.
However, the problem is when dumbasses think they know best. I have no idea who you are or how you drive, perhaps you are competent to judge whether it's safe to exceed the speed limit. Do I want to trust my life to your assessment of your own competence though? Hell no. That's why I'm fastidious about sticking to the rules,
I agree that this is a problem but your solution is not correct, in my view. Look at it in reverse: You don't want to trust your life to my assessment, but you do want to trust your life to your own assessment. By sticking to the rules you are trusting your life to the assessment of a policy maker who is greatly divorced from the here-and-now reality. I advocate trusting yourself and never your fellow drivers and never the policy maker.
I don't expect other people to trust me either, no matter how good I think I am. It's not just a CYA thing, I refuse to put myself in a situation where I can be held responsible for other people's lives (or the ending thereof rather).
If you drive at all you are responsible for other people's lives. Some legal cover is given if you operate within the rules (and can prove that you were operating within the rules); I acknowledge that by recommending that you follow your own instincts and not the law I am advising you to operate without this legal cover and, certainly, if this is not something you're comfortable with doing you should not do so.
The other thing about rules is that it provides some sort of means whereby people can judge what you're going to do. If someone can expect you not to cross a white line, for example, then they can plan their driving strategy. If you expect someone to be doing 60km/h in a certain zone, then you can judge how big a gap you need to pull out. It's difficult to see that someone coming is actually doing 120km/h (because he's judged himself competent to do so) until they're a lot closer.
I agree entirely. What you should do on the road is always The Most Expected Thing, not the legal thing. That's safe. I always do what is safe first, what is expected second and what is legal dead last. Legality should not be your primary concern. It is incidental that most rules-of-the-road that people expect you to follow are derived from the motor vehicle code. Great example: I try to always, always signal well in advance and I am appreciative when others do so. I do this because this is, in my view, essential to safety, not because not doing so is a moving violation. I only omit this action when instant response is required to avoid a disaster. If I follow the law it is because it was a good idea, not because it was the law.
Really the posted speed limits are fine. If you think they're too slow, perhaps try riding a bicycle or a donkey or even walking to give yourself a bit of perspective and be grateful that you have mechanised transport.
This is a fallacy. The fact that you could be forced to go much slower doesn't mean that the limits are "fine" - in most cases the limits are extremely conservative--and for a good reason! But the reason that they are conservative may not apply to everyone all the time, and thus it may not make sense to limit yourself to the posted speed. Each situation should be evaluated individually.
I dispute your assertion that you are a good driver. Good drivers speed, bad drivers don't. I recommend you re-evaluate your position using other criteria: Are you a good driver for reasons other than "I don't speed."?
Indeed. Knowing language well and using it carefully allows us to be precise and expressive, and makes talking to dullards frustrating. While the flexibility exists that someone could say "not insignificant" and mean "significant", it is not inherently an opposite and should not be presumed to be opposite.
Even if no one else will, I'll step up and defend speeding.
Exceeding posted limits is not necessarily unsafe or unwise. Posted speed limits set the maximum safe speed for the worst case scenarios, such as bad weather coupled with moronic behavior of the drivers. It does not account for normal conditions and competent people because it must look to the lowest common denominator.
I always drive safely first, legally second. In some places and conditions driving at the speed limit is unsafe and in those places I don't. Getting in to an accident due to speed isn't okay because you weren't violating the posted limits. Similarly, in some places and conditions driving over the speed limit is safe. I drive at the optimal combination of safety and speed, according to my own estimation. I generally expect everyone to do the same, because it's not the job of the speed limit sign, the cops, the politicians or the lawyers to keep you safe, it's your responsibility.
Ultimately there is no other authority on what is the right thing to do while driving other than the individual driver. Assuming that you have been provided with a full understanding of the facts, physics, statistics and knowledge of the best practices for any given situation it is thereafter solely your responsibility to do the right thing. If you decide the right thing involves violating posted speed limits, or any other traffic laws, I encourage you to do so without hesitation. The legal system may retaliate against you in some cases, which is a sad reality you must accept, but I do not recommend any alteration to your behavior. Daddy government doesn't know best, you know best. If you have a doubt as to what is correct by all means adhere to the recommendations set forth in law and by signage; keep it under the posted limit, don't cross solid lines, toe the line. If you do not feel that you can capably judge the situation it is entirely correct to fall back on rules you have learned by rote. However, if you feel at any time that what you should do and what the laws say you should do are not the same, go with yourself.
Lyx only "eases you in to" LaTeX in that it makes it easy to do simple things such that you feel obliged to learn LaTeX in order to get your document from "It's there but nothing looks right or works right" to "Mostly correct." LyX is not a WYSIWYG LaTeX editor! It's a GUI LaTeX builder for people who already know LaTeX.
A WYSIWYG LaTeX editor would work almost exactly like LO Writer and just become LaTeX on save.
If you wish to give up and use something else, be my guest. When you start messing with facts is when I take issue. I am not attempting to make myself appear smart, I am merely providing counter-anecdotal evidence. I didn't reply to you for your benefit, but to make sure that the impressionable bystander is not given a one-sided narrative. Reports of difficulty are greatly exaggerated by you, full stop, no need to worry that there's some fundamental flaw in Debian.
Your right, there's no way to KNOW for sure what the courts will do... but it probably should be copyright infringement.
That's not where I was going. It's only likely to be infringement if the *entire work* turns out to be essentially this sort of trivial transformation of an original, or a substantial portion of the work. We've only seen one example cited and although there are probably others it must be proven in court that the sum of these is so large that the new book would essentially not exist without them.
With smart meters, they can tell people when you're home, likely which holidays you observe, if you watch TV, if you work at night or day, so on and so. They sell your demographic information.
Likewise, police and other officials are now working with utility companies to determine if you are growing pot, running a business out of your garage, so on and so.
All I can say is "Good luck, motherfuckers!" - at my house you'd be hard pressed to identify any of this information from power usage fluctuations.
You really going to try and tell me that this is not a derivative work?
The law is not that simple. If you fleshed out the rest of the original Dr. Seuss book in your new form and published it as a children's story, yes you would probably be liable for copyright infringement. If you published a snippet like that in a substantially different work, even if it was also a children's book, you probably would not be liable for copyright infringement. Your work as a whole may or may not be a derivative based on (and this is important!) the arguments of your lawyers and the lawyers opposing them, as well as the understanding of the judge. Until a case is examined it's impossible to know for sure, even if you're an expert.
Taking a text book, and mechanically recreating its content substituting other content intended to convey the same essential information is about as textbook a definition of creating derivative work as you can get.
I don't have a problem with someone doing what you describe and I believe it should be legal. Making a work-alike product which is sufficiently similar to serve as a drop-in replacement should always be legal; only patents could interfere.
Whether the company in this case is doing something illegal is impossible to judge without reviewing substantial portions of one of their 'equivalent' textbooks and comparing it to the original, and even then a judgement that wasn't vetted in court would be worthless. We shall see whether in this case the entire work is substantially composed of 'questionable' recreation of this sort.
Actually handling multitouch gestures in a special way is up to the window manager, DE, and applications.
Not so much.
See for example this, where a spec for X multitouch gestures is described. This is not something WMs can effectively support without help from X. A couple of years later, support lands as a result. Yes, it's up to the WM or whatever to interpret the events, but X needed updating to give them enough information.
The n9 is a better phone and better for normal people, but hackers will like the n900 better. Certainly it's got nicer multitasking. It makes a very good hand-sized tablet, but only a so-so phone; if the phone experience could be improved it would be easy to recommend.
You're right, they are far more open than most. And, indeed, almost all closed parts could be replaced without extreme effort, barring only some of the driver stuff.
Real, fully-open phones are indeed possible but the n9 isn't the way to get there. It's just the best intersection of practical and open at the moment.
Full disclosure: I own an n9 and an n900 and I love them both.
cm is a little better because it's at least a fixed size, even if it's not proportional to the screen width. Example: 15px may be so narrow on your screen that you can't see it or it may be as wide as your finger, but 1cm is always 1cm. At least the spacing is guaranteed, even if the result is not pleasant, whereas with 15px there may be no space at all. Worse is when you have a very small screen and a book which was px-layed-out for a very large screen. CM layout mitigates this problem somewhat. Of course, em is still better.
I'm just waiting for the follow-up Uplink MMO. The only thing the game was missing was real people on the other end. Imagine if they added the (eventual) ability to buy and build your own network and required you to learn to defend it.
How long before CPU benchmarks are measured in how deeply you can nest this and still achieve some fixed number of results per second with a computationally intensive task?
"Doom3 is running at 30FPS... inside 8 levels of emulation."
Totally apart from a pretty slick MVC framework the Mojolicious project has my undying affection for producing the mojo tool.
How many times have you wanted to scrape something out of a web page and you thought "I know, I'll use wget (or curl) and sed! Easy enough." so you write
# get story titles from slashdot wget slashdot.org -O - 2>/dev/null | sed -e 's/uh, what now?//'
And then you get stuck fiddling with ever-crazier sed expressions to filter down to just the data you want? I know I've been there a dozen times and wound up with various unpleasant solutions or, when necessary, I've broken down and written a proper perl script which parses the HTML (and taken about 20 times as long as I planned to take to do it!) Maybe you try
# get story titles from slashdot wget slashdot.org -O - 2>/dev/null | sed -n '/"title-/{s/<[^>]*>//g;s/^[ \t]*//;p}'
And just go with it, because it's good enough. Well, no more! Now I can say
mojo get slashdot.org 'h2.story > span:first-child>a' text
And have my results just like that!
Just as jQuery was a revolution in DOM scripting, to the point where I just won't write JS without it, so is mojo a revolution for these kinds of applications. I can now pull down pages and parse the actual structure and select just what I need. Beautiful.
Slashdot Mirror
1) conversations. Instead of every email being separate and singular, Gmail groups together replies into conversations.
LOL. What? I've been using "conversations" aka "threads" in my mail reader since Netscape Communicator and usenet readers from before that. They're actually better than google's screwed-up "conversation" view, because nothing is automatically hidden and you get to see the actual structure of the replies and not just a flat view.
The rest of your commentary is true enough (and tagging is a godsend for a lazy archiver like myself).
The problem with Chrom{e,ium} s that it's terribly bad at resource-heavy web pages and at more than ~30 tabs. Anecdote: On /b/ the other day there was a sticky soliciting banners with 6k+ replies. Firefox hangs for ~2min trying to load it, complains of scripts taking too long and asks me what to do. If I say "Stop script" I get the page immediately, if I say "Continue" it keeps loading and eventually gives me the page. Chrome? Tries to load for about 30 seconds and gives me a crash message for every tab pointing to that domain. Yeah, with no extensions loaded on Chrome (FF has a ton, of course). This kind of resilience makes FF a winner even if it's slow.
Sorry, I thought you were saying corbet had enabled a "hide by default, show only if the individual user chooses to" setting that applied to Florien's account. I see that I was mistaken.
However, the problem is when dumbasses think they know best. I have no idea who you are or how you drive, perhaps you are competent to judge whether it's safe to exceed the speed limit. Do I want to trust my life to your assessment of your own competence though? Hell no. That's why I'm fastidious about sticking to the rules,
I agree that this is a problem but your solution is not correct, in my view. Look at it in reverse: You don't want to trust your life to my assessment, but you do want to trust your life to your own assessment. By sticking to the rules you are trusting your life to the assessment of a policy maker who is greatly divorced from the here-and-now reality. I advocate trusting yourself and never your fellow drivers and never the policy maker.
I don't expect other people to trust me either, no matter how good I think I am. It's not just a CYA thing, I refuse to put myself in a situation where I can be held responsible for other people's lives (or the ending thereof rather).
If you drive at all you are responsible for other people's lives. Some legal cover is given if you operate within the rules (and can prove that you were operating within the rules); I acknowledge that by recommending that you follow your own instincts and not the law I am advising you to operate without this legal cover and, certainly, if this is not something you're comfortable with doing you should not do so.
The other thing about rules is that it provides some sort of means whereby people can judge what you're going to do. If someone can expect you not to cross a white line, for example, then they can plan their driving strategy. If you expect someone to be doing 60km/h in a certain zone, then you can judge how big a gap you need to pull out. It's difficult to see that someone coming is actually doing 120km/h (because he's judged himself competent to do so) until they're a lot closer.
I agree entirely. What you should do on the road is always The Most Expected Thing, not the legal thing. That's safe. I always do what is safe first, what is expected second and what is legal dead last. Legality should not be your primary concern. It is incidental that most rules-of-the-road that people expect you to follow are derived from the motor vehicle code. Great example: I try to always, always signal well in advance and I am appreciative when others do so. I do this because this is, in my view, essential to safety, not because not doing so is a moving violation. I only omit this action when instant response is required to avoid a disaster. If I follow the law it is because it was a good idea, not because it was the law.
Really the posted speed limits are fine. If you think they're too slow, perhaps try riding a bicycle or a donkey or even walking to give yourself a bit of perspective and be grateful that you have mechanised transport.
This is a fallacy. The fact that you could be forced to go much slower doesn't mean that the limits are "fine" - in most cases the limits are extremely conservative--and for a good reason! But the reason that they are conservative may not apply to everyone all the time, and thus it may not make sense to limit yourself to the posted speed. Each situation should be evaluated individually.
I dispute your assertion that you are a good driver. Good drivers speed, bad drivers don't. I recommend you re-evaluate your position using other criteria: Are you a good driver for reasons other than "I don't speed."?
Indeed. Knowing language well and using it carefully allows us to be precise and expressive, and makes talking to dullards frustrating. While the flexibility exists that someone could say "not insignificant" and mean "significant", it is not inherently an opposite and should not be presumed to be opposite.
Even if no one else will, I'll step up and defend speeding.
Exceeding posted limits is not necessarily unsafe or unwise. Posted speed limits set the maximum safe speed for the worst case scenarios, such as bad weather coupled with moronic behavior of the drivers. It does not account for normal conditions and competent people because it must look to the lowest common denominator.
I always drive safely first, legally second. In some places and conditions driving at the speed limit is unsafe and in those places I don't. Getting in to an accident due to speed isn't okay because you weren't violating the posted limits. Similarly, in some places and conditions driving over the speed limit is safe. I drive at the optimal combination of safety and speed, according to my own estimation. I generally expect everyone to do the same, because it's not the job of the speed limit sign, the cops, the politicians or the lawyers to keep you safe, it's your responsibility.
Ultimately there is no other authority on what is the right thing to do while driving other than the individual driver. Assuming that you have been provided with a full understanding of the facts, physics, statistics and knowledge of the best practices for any given situation it is thereafter solely your responsibility to do the right thing. If you decide the right thing involves violating posted speed limits, or any other traffic laws, I encourage you to do so without hesitation. The legal system may retaliate against you in some cases, which is a sad reality you must accept, but I do not recommend any alteration to your behavior. Daddy government doesn't know best, you know best. If you have a doubt as to what is correct by all means adhere to the recommendations set forth in law and by signage; keep it under the posted limit, don't cross solid lines, toe the line. If you do not feel that you can capably judge the situation it is entirely correct to fall back on rules you have learned by rote. However, if you feel at any time that what you should do and what the laws say you should do are not the same, go with yourself.
Is he really? That explains why he suddenly disappeared from related threads! Perhaps I'll go unhide him just to see what he's been up to.
Uh, not really.
Lyx only "eases you in to" LaTeX in that it makes it easy to do simple things such that you feel obliged to learn LaTeX in order to get your document from "It's there but nothing looks right or works right" to "Mostly correct." LyX is not a WYSIWYG LaTeX editor! It's a GUI LaTeX builder for people who already know LaTeX.
A WYSIWYG LaTeX editor would work almost exactly like LO Writer and just become LaTeX on save.
If you wish to give up and use something else, be my guest. When you start messing with facts is when I take issue. I am not attempting to make myself appear smart, I am merely providing counter-anecdotal evidence. I didn't reply to you for your benefit, but to make sure that the impressionable bystander is not given a one-sided narrative. Reports of difficulty are greatly exaggerated by you, full stop, no need to worry that there's some fundamental flaw in Debian.
Not only is the installer a pain in the rump, but it's almost impossible to install the binary nVIDIA drivers on a 5 year old card even.
I must laugh at this. It's certainly possible and I have done it often. You must mean "I couldn't get it working, I don't know what I'm doing."
Your right, there's no way to KNOW for sure what the courts will do... but it probably should be copyright infringement.
That's not where I was going. It's only likely to be infringement if the *entire work* turns out to be essentially this sort of trivial transformation of an original, or a substantial portion of the work. We've only seen one example cited and although there are probably others it must be proven in court that the sum of these is so large that the new book would essentially not exist without them.
With smart meters, they can tell people when you're home, likely which holidays you observe, if you watch TV, if you work at night or day, so on and so. They sell your demographic information.
Likewise, police and other officials are now working with utility companies to determine if you are growing pot, running a business out of your garage, so on and so.
All I can say is "Good luck, motherfuckers!" - at my house you'd be hard pressed to identify any of this information from power usage fluctuations.
I have no idea what kind of justification can be given to this, other than "we are Christian country!!!".
Not taxing religious institution is a way to stay as far as possible away from accusations of suppressing religion.
You really going to try and tell me that this is not a derivative work?
The law is not that simple. If you fleshed out the rest of the original Dr. Seuss book in your new form and published it as a children's story, yes you would probably be liable for copyright infringement. If you published a snippet like that in a substantially different work, even if it was also a children's book, you probably would not be liable for copyright infringement. Your work as a whole may or may not be a derivative based on (and this is important!) the arguments of your lawyers and the lawyers opposing them, as well as the understanding of the judge. Until a case is examined it's impossible to know for sure, even if you're an expert.
Taking a text book, and mechanically recreating its content substituting other content intended to convey the same essential information is about as textbook a definition of creating derivative work as you can get.
I don't have a problem with someone doing what you describe and I believe it should be legal. Making a work-alike product which is sufficiently similar to serve as a drop-in replacement should always be legal; only patents could interfere.
Whether the company in this case is doing something illegal is impossible to judge without reviewing substantial portions of one of their 'equivalent' textbooks and comparing it to the original, and even then a judgement that wasn't vetted in court would be worthless. We shall see whether in this case the entire work is substantially composed of 'questionable' recreation of this sort.
Whoever said Anonymous was altruistically motivated? The motivation is individual self interest.
What do you do if you work for the government and nobody gives a damn about "Cost"?
Actually handling multitouch gestures in a special way is up to the window manager, DE, and applications.
Not so much.
See for example this, where a spec for X multitouch gestures is described. This is not something WMs can effectively support without help from X. A couple of years later, support lands as a result. Yes, it's up to the WM or whatever to interpret the events, but X needed updating to give them enough information.
Multi pointer is not the same as multi touch. I was using two mice with xfree86 3.x, but that doesn't mean much.
The n9 is a better phone and better for normal people, but hackers will like the n900 better. Certainly it's got nicer multitasking. It makes a very good hand-sized tablet, but only a so-so phone; if the phone experience could be improved it would be easy to recommend.
You're right, they are far more open than most. And, indeed, almost all closed parts could be replaced without extreme effort, barring only some of the driver stuff.
Real, fully-open phones are indeed possible but the n9 isn't the way to get there. It's just the best intersection of practical and open at the moment.
Full disclosure: I own an n9 and an n900 and I love them both.
cm is a little better because it's at least a fixed size, even if it's not proportional to the screen width. Example: 15px may be so narrow on your screen that you can't see it or it may be as wide as your finger, but 1cm is always 1cm. At least the spacing is guaranteed, even if the result is not pleasant, whereas with 15px there may be no space at all. Worse is when you have a very small screen and a book which was px-layed-out for a very large screen. CM layout mitigates this problem somewhat. Of course, em is still better.
I'm just waiting for the follow-up Uplink MMO. The only thing the game was missing was real people on the other end. Imagine if they added the (eventual) ability to buy and build your own network and required you to learn to defend it.
Please, Introversion, please?
How long before CPU benchmarks are measured in how deeply you can nest this and still achieve some fixed number of results per second with a computationally intensive task?
"Doom3 is running at 30FPS... inside 8 levels of emulation."
That isn't shameless self promotion, that's topically awesome.
Totally apart from a pretty slick MVC framework the Mojolicious project has my undying affection for producing the mojo tool.
How many times have you wanted to scrape something out of a web page and you thought "I know, I'll use wget (or curl) and sed! Easy enough." so you write
# get story titles from slashdot
wget slashdot.org -O - 2>/dev/null | sed -e 's/uh, what now?//'
And then you get stuck fiddling with ever-crazier sed expressions to filter down to just the data you want? I know I've been there a dozen times and wound up with various unpleasant solutions or, when necessary, I've broken down and written a proper perl script which parses the HTML (and taken about 20 times as long as I planned to take to do it!) Maybe you try
And just go with it, because it's good enough. Well, no more! Now I can say
And have my results just like that!
Just as jQuery was a revolution in DOM scripting, to the point where I just won't write JS without it, so is mojo a revolution for these kinds of applications. I can now pull down pages and parse the actual structure and select just what I need. Beautiful.