The problem is that the F-keys are the worst possible design usability-wise. Being soft keys without labels, just by looking at them there is no possible way of knowing what they do. Quick tell me, what does the F9 key do? There is no way to say what it does, because the answer is different for every program. So, narrow it down a bit. You just installed a new CAD suite/Image editor/IDE/other professional software you just spent $$$$ on. Quick, tell me what does the F9 key do in your shiny new app? You don't have a clue, because you haven't gotten to that part of the manual yet, if it even has a proper manual. And considering it probably has a use that has nothing to do with the use in any other program that maps some functionality to F9, you now have to memorize a completely new meaning for that key.
Now replace that with a touchscreen. If a program wants to expose a one-tap function, it can map a region of the screen for that purpose, and label it clearly as such. Now, you not only know what function it does, but that the function is available to you in the first place. From a usability perspective, this is infinitely better than F-keys.
In an ideal world, the touchbar would be augmented by OLED key caps on the rest of the keyboard. Not only would this allow for remapping the keys when changing keyboard layouts, pressing the CTRL key could cause the key caps to be redrawn with the menu commands that would be executed by completing the key chord.
If it does make it up to the SCOTUS, the outcome is pretty cut and dry. "Congress shall make no law...". Meaning the government can't take any action restricting free speech. In fact the entirety of the Bill of Rights is simply a list of things the government is not allowed to do. For example, the second amendment prohibits the government from restricting your access to firearms, but businesses are 100% in their rights to do so on their premises. A business is equally within their rights to regulate your speech on their premises (and web hosting can be considered virtual premises) for the same reason. So whether the suppression of speech happens in the virtual world or in meatspace, the only question the court needs to ask is whether it is the government doing the suppression. In this case, the answer is a clear 'no'.
Granted if the FCC declared all Internet infrastructure to be common carriers, then if an ISP, hosting provider, or other service provider such as Cloudflare decided to censor any content, then they would be in violation of the regulations. But that would be a statutory case and not a first amendment situation.
No, GoT fans obsess about spoilers and avoid being exposed to them at all costs. ASoIaF fans would sell a body part to obtain GRRMs notes in order to lord them over the aforementioned GoT fans. ASoIaF fans will also be sure to make sure you know that "Game of Thrones" is just the name of the TV show, named after the first book in the series "A Game of Thrones", and "A Song of Ice and Fire" is the actual name for the series of books as a whole.
Yes, benchmarks should be done on the same hardware+iOS over time. People are asserting that degradation over time, especially close to new hardware releases, is maliciously built in by Apple. But I have yet to see hard evidence that any such degradation even happens in the first place.
A survey of search terms is hardly a scientific study. There is a persistent rumor that Apple somehow cripples the OS on older models to make people want to upgrade. To me, seeing the search terms spike is not confirmation of the deed, but rather confirmation of the rumor.
An alternative explanation is just that Apple has chosen to support their newer operating systems on older hardware that isn't necessarily powerful enough to run new features well. It's a real catch 22, where if they chose to only release new features on hardware that could run those features well, they'd be accused of forced obsolescence. On the other hand, by allowing new features to run on older hardware, the older hardware runs slower because it has a hard time keeping up with the new features. And Apple gets accused of forced obsolescence because the old hardware runs slow.
To be sure, a real study needs to be done which compares benchmarks on older hardware between OS upgrades and over time. That would show for sure whether it is in fact just that newer OSes run slower on older hardware and that any apparent slowdown prior to a new hardware release is merely perceptual, or if a piece of hardware running the same OS really does slow down prior to a new hardware release.
And here's another. Man-made global warming is real, 90-something percent of scientists and 99ish percent of climatologists agree. Nuclear baseload is where it's at. Gen IV reactors, especially MSRs could mitigate much of the problems of current reactor technology if the NIMBYs would let the technology progress.
That's what hobbies are for. As a professional software developer, if suddenly I never had to work a day for the rest of my life I would probably start contributing to open source projects or start one of my own. Likewise an auto mechanic might get a classic car to restore. Though I have no idea what hobbies a CEO would take up to fill the void of no longer having a company to run into the ground.
Exactly. "The Web" is simply one application of the internet. The web is a set of hypermedia resources that can be linked to one another (hence the term 'web', with a visualization of the hyperlinks appearing as a spider web). If it isn't hypermedia served over the internet, it's not the web but some other internet application. FTP, email, smartphone apps, etc. all use the internet, but are not the web.
I am genuinely curious how a conservative and a liberal actually having a respectful intelligent conversation about the issues constitutes trolling in the mind of some./ moderator.
I think we are in strong agreement here. I think most on the left if they stop and think about it really didn't like Obamacare, because a system that just makes sure as many people have health insurance as possible, plus a few regulatory tweaks to insurance, doesn't really solve anything as it is the health insurance system itself we have in the US that enables the system to be broken. When a hospital can charge $400 for a single pill of ibuprofen (not hyperbole, that's exactly what my wife's EOB said after she gave birth) because the insurance company will gladly pay for it, it provides an impenetrable barrier to those who can't afford that sort of care, and can't afford the premiums to get the insurance.
The problem lies in the fuzzy boundary between "most people don't like to pay for some random strangers' medical bills" and "As long as the burden isn't too different from those services". I am sure there are plenty of people who don't like to pay for some random stranger's house fire to be put out as well. Especially with many of those who identify as libertarian considering all taxes to be theft. So the question is how do you convince people that the taxes required to fund a universal healthcare system will be an acceptable burden?
As someone firmly left of center, and also craving a civil grownup conversation on the issues without being called names (getting sick of being called a cuck and a snowflake for simply showing compassion to others), I would like to take you up on your offer to talk about the issues you mentioned. In particular, I would like to discuss healthcare as it is the first one you brought up, and interestingly for this topic in particular, those on the left would argue that they are the ones who are attempting to find solutions while the right is stonewalling. So I would open by asking what do you as someone right of center perceive as being broken with our healthcare system, and could you describe what an ideal 'fixed' system would look like?
Well, for my CS degree, we did learn an assembly language as well. MIPS, I believe. Not for learning basic concepts, but it was the language and instruction set that we used to learn CPU architecture and compilers. Yes, we built a compiler in Java that compiled a simple language into MIPS.
At my college the low level CS classes were taught using Scheme. The idea was to use a language that nobody would ever in their right mind use in the "real world" to teach basic concepts like recursion without the student getting bogged down by implementation details specific to a language. Higher level classes were taught in Java so that we would have experience with a 'real' language. Also, there are some concepts that are nicer to work with in a powerful modern language, rather than shoehorning them in to an obsolete language not designed to support them.
The same thing can be said of conservatism, or libertarianism, or any political philosophy for that matter. Adherence to a political philosophy as ones primary approach to life is inherently rooted in emotion rather than logic regardless of the philosophy in question.
Your singling out of liberalism as the one philosophy as the only one rooted in emotion indicates a clear conservative bias on your part.
And that's the whole issue. The flying car technology itself is a solved problem. What is lacking is the surrounding infrastructure and regulatory framework. Yet every time a flying car story comes up, they are still only trying to re-solve the technology problem.
If the flying jet ski is an ultralight, why not just call it an ultralight? What about it sets it apart from existing ultralights and puts it instead in the flying car category?
Along those lines, what is preventing the use of existing ultralights for general commuting purposes? If I get an ultralight currently available on the market, and use it to fly to work or to the store, have I not just 'invented' the flying car?
A flying car that is actually practical as a transportation mechanism will either need a pilot's license to operate (in which case it should just be called an airplane/helicopter), or it needs to be fully 100% autonomous.
I know you are trying to be clever, but the defamation lies not with the true statement (if I had committed those crimes, it would not be defamation because any negative public perception of me would be my fault for committing the crimes, not yours for reporting on it), but rather with the implied false statement (that I did in fact commit and get charged with those crimes in the first place).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the F-keys are the worst possible design usability-wise. Being soft keys without labels, just by looking at them there is no possible way of knowing what they do. Quick tell me, what does the F9 key do? There is no way to say what it does, because the answer is different for every program. So, narrow it down a bit. You just installed a new CAD suite/Image editor/IDE/other professional software you just spent $$$$ on. Quick, tell me what does the F9 key do in your shiny new app? You don't have a clue, because you haven't gotten to that part of the manual yet, if it even has a proper manual. And considering it probably has a use that has nothing to do with the use in any other program that maps some functionality to F9, you now have to memorize a completely new meaning for that key.
Now replace that with a touchscreen. If a program wants to expose a one-tap function, it can map a region of the screen for that purpose, and label it clearly as such. Now, you not only know what function it does, but that the function is available to you in the first place. From a usability perspective, this is infinitely better than F-keys.
In an ideal world, the touchbar would be augmented by OLED key caps on the rest of the keyboard. Not only would this allow for remapping the keys when changing keyboard layouts, pressing the CTRL key could cause the key caps to be redrawn with the menu commands that would be executed by completing the key chord.
If it does make it up to the SCOTUS, the outcome is pretty cut and dry. "Congress shall make no law...". Meaning the government can't take any action restricting free speech. In fact the entirety of the Bill of Rights is simply a list of things the government is not allowed to do. For example, the second amendment prohibits the government from restricting your access to firearms, but businesses are 100% in their rights to do so on their premises. A business is equally within their rights to regulate your speech on their premises (and web hosting can be considered virtual premises) for the same reason. So whether the suppression of speech happens in the virtual world or in meatspace, the only question the court needs to ask is whether it is the government doing the suppression. In this case, the answer is a clear 'no'.
Granted if the FCC declared all Internet infrastructure to be common carriers, then if an ISP, hosting provider, or other service provider such as Cloudflare decided to censor any content, then they would be in violation of the regulations. But that would be a statutory case and not a first amendment situation.
No, GoT fans obsess about spoilers and avoid being exposed to them at all costs. ASoIaF fans would sell a body part to obtain GRRMs notes in order to lord them over the aforementioned GoT fans. ASoIaF fans will also be sure to make sure you know that "Game of Thrones" is just the name of the TV show, named after the first book in the series "A Game of Thrones", and "A Song of Ice and Fire" is the actual name for the series of books as a whole.
That comic is so fugly, it must have been designed by an engineer.
What about alt-web applications?
Yes, benchmarks should be done on the same hardware+iOS over time. People are asserting that degradation over time, especially close to new hardware releases, is maliciously built in by Apple. But I have yet to see hard evidence that any such degradation even happens in the first place.
A survey of search terms is hardly a scientific study. There is a persistent rumor that Apple somehow cripples the OS on older models to make people want to upgrade. To me, seeing the search terms spike is not confirmation of the deed, but rather confirmation of the rumor.
An alternative explanation is just that Apple has chosen to support their newer operating systems on older hardware that isn't necessarily powerful enough to run new features well. It's a real catch 22, where if they chose to only release new features on hardware that could run those features well, they'd be accused of forced obsolescence. On the other hand, by allowing new features to run on older hardware, the older hardware runs slower because it has a hard time keeping up with the new features. And Apple gets accused of forced obsolescence because the old hardware runs slow.
To be sure, a real study needs to be done which compares benchmarks on older hardware between OS upgrades and over time. That would show for sure whether it is in fact just that newer OSes run slower on older hardware and that any apparent slowdown prior to a new hardware release is merely perceptual, or if a piece of hardware running the same OS really does slow down prior to a new hardware release.
Yes it does. The SoS may not delete any emails until after her last day in office.
And here's another. Man-made global warming is real, 90-something percent of scientists and 99ish percent of climatologists agree. Nuclear baseload is where it's at. Gen IV reactors, especially MSRs could mitigate much of the problems of current reactor technology if the NIMBYs would let the technology progress.
That's what hobbies are for. As a professional software developer, if suddenly I never had to work a day for the rest of my life I would probably start contributing to open source projects or start one of my own. Likewise an auto mechanic might get a classic car to restore. Though I have no idea what hobbies a CEO would take up to fill the void of no longer having a company to run into the ground.
Exactly. "The Web" is simply one application of the internet. The web is a set of hypermedia resources that can be linked to one another (hence the term 'web', with a visualization of the hyperlinks appearing as a spider web). If it isn't hypermedia served over the internet, it's not the web but some other internet application. FTP, email, smartphone apps, etc. all use the internet, but are not the web.
5.5 Fill the remaining 75cm with ads and 'sponsored content'.
6.1 Hide the "next" button among at least a half dozen ads that are disguised to also look like next buttons.
6.5 Break the site completely if adblock is enabled.
On BBC news front page: http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...
Just because China censors something doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Wait, so you still have to actually buy windows? So everyone bitching about windows 10 actually paid money for it?
FYI you can download the latest macOS for free from the mac app store.
I am genuinely curious how a conservative and a liberal actually having a respectful intelligent conversation about the issues constitutes trolling in the mind of some ./ moderator.
I think we are in strong agreement here. I think most on the left if they stop and think about it really didn't like Obamacare, because a system that just makes sure as many people have health insurance as possible, plus a few regulatory tweaks to insurance, doesn't really solve anything as it is the health insurance system itself we have in the US that enables the system to be broken. When a hospital can charge $400 for a single pill of ibuprofen (not hyperbole, that's exactly what my wife's EOB said after she gave birth) because the insurance company will gladly pay for it, it provides an impenetrable barrier to those who can't afford that sort of care, and can't afford the premiums to get the insurance.
The problem lies in the fuzzy boundary between "most people don't like to pay for some random strangers' medical bills" and "As long as the burden isn't too different from those services". I am sure there are plenty of people who don't like to pay for some random stranger's house fire to be put out as well. Especially with many of those who identify as libertarian considering all taxes to be theft. So the question is how do you convince people that the taxes required to fund a universal healthcare system will be an acceptable burden?
As someone firmly left of center, and also craving a civil grownup conversation on the issues without being called names (getting sick of being called a cuck and a snowflake for simply showing compassion to others), I would like to take you up on your offer to talk about the issues you mentioned. In particular, I would like to discuss healthcare as it is the first one you brought up, and interestingly for this topic in particular, those on the left would argue that they are the ones who are attempting to find solutions while the right is stonewalling. So I would open by asking what do you as someone right of center perceive as being broken with our healthcare system, and could you describe what an ideal 'fixed' system would look like?
Well, for my CS degree, we did learn an assembly language as well. MIPS, I believe. Not for learning basic concepts, but it was the language and instruction set that we used to learn CPU architecture and compilers. Yes, we built a compiler in Java that compiled a simple language into MIPS.
At my college the low level CS classes were taught using Scheme. The idea was to use a language that nobody would ever in their right mind use in the "real world" to teach basic concepts like recursion without the student getting bogged down by implementation details specific to a language. Higher level classes were taught in Java so that we would have experience with a 'real' language. Also, there are some concepts that are nicer to work with in a powerful modern language, rather than shoehorning them in to an obsolete language not designed to support them.
The same thing can be said of conservatism, or libertarianism, or any political philosophy for that matter. Adherence to a political philosophy as ones primary approach to life is inherently rooted in emotion rather than logic regardless of the philosophy in question.
Your singling out of liberalism as the one philosophy as the only one rooted in emotion indicates a clear conservative bias on your part.
The company I was working at in 2010 was effectively shut down for a day when McAfee flagged and quarantined svchost.exe.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
And that's the whole issue. The flying car technology itself is a solved problem. What is lacking is the surrounding infrastructure and regulatory framework. Yet every time a flying car story comes up, they are still only trying to re-solve the technology problem.
If the flying jet ski is an ultralight, why not just call it an ultralight? What about it sets it apart from existing ultralights and puts it instead in the flying car category?
Along those lines, what is preventing the use of existing ultralights for general commuting purposes? If I get an ultralight currently available on the market, and use it to fly to work or to the store, have I not just 'invented' the flying car?
A flying car that is actually practical as a transportation mechanism will either need a pilot's license to operate (in which case it should just be called an airplane/helicopter), or it needs to be fully 100% autonomous.
I know you are trying to be clever, but the defamation lies not with the true statement (if I had committed those crimes, it would not be defamation because any negative public perception of me would be my fault for committing the crimes, not yours for reporting on it), but rather with the implied false statement (that I did in fact commit and get charged with those crimes in the first place).