Those of us who are ancient will remember that that's happened before. In the mid-1990s, the Harry Fox Agency (IIRC) threatened to sue the OnLine Guitar Archive (OLGA) for illegally reproducing lyrics without permission. Many lyrics were partially excised as a result, but the threatened death of online guitar resources failed to happen...
So if you ever get a tab sheet were you get the first word of a line and a sequence of dots instead of the lyrics, now you know why.
enlightened self interest is supposed to make the world a better place for everybody, not be an excuse for screwing over friends and neighbours who rely on a shared resource.
Err no. Enlightened self interest is exactly about screwing over everyone else. That's why it's called self interest. If an Objectivist ever made the world a better place for other people, you can be pretty certain it was an accidental side effect.
Let me be the first to say: that's not actually funny. Is it even a joke? Why would a mammal cause France to surrender? What's the historical analogy? Is this from the Fox News version of "The Daily Show"? What gives?
You can't create jokes by adding cliches to news stories.
New mammal found : "It's A Trap" says Akbar -- not funny New mammal found : "GWB can't pronounce its name" -- not funny New mammal found in Indonesia : US Govt pleased since they won't have to ship it to Indonesia in order to torture it as a Terror suspect -- not funny
This has got to be my biggest complaint about Linux distros.
I can't think of a single distro besides Gentoo that distributes sources by default. Sure, they're available, but none of the standard install CDs for Fedora or Debian contain source code.
Re:Fitts Law and the Dual Layer Task Bar
on
KDE 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Placing task bar items along the edge of the screen provides the benefit of "infinite height". With the stacked display of items on the KDE task bar the top row of items do not benefit from this.
Except now I've got to move the mouse back to the point where I was previously. Which is now a long way and a small target.
So given that short trips are easy, and big targets are easy, Fitt's Law tells me that the round trip for my mouse can either be i) A long way to a big target (moderately easy) + a long way to a small target (hard). or ii) A short way to a small target (moderately easy) and a short way to a small target (moderately easy).
And yet, Apple weenies would have us believe that (i) is preferable to (ii)!
I was browsing a baseball site the other day and they kept using terms like "suicide squeeze" and "relief pitcher". Bastards.
Clue : If you're reading a tech news site with a leaning to Linux, it'll probably help to have some idea of the latest major developments in technology, as they relate to Linux. If you don't know what Xen is, or what a virtual server is, it's not as if it's hard to find out
Everytime there's an new release that is not just bugfixes, they increase the release number by one. Usually, this involves a certain breakage of backwards compatibility. That way, I know that FC4.2 and FC4.1 use compatible packages, and that FC5.0 might not.
I think that falls under the category of "not rocket science".
How did "sees silver lining in botnet cloud" become "Botnets a Good Sign". The official quite clearly said "I'm not saying bots are a good thing".
Still, at least it wasn't a dupe.
Similarly, if a NIH official pointed out that "The rise of obesity in the West is better than malnutrition", that wouldn't be a endorsement of obesity, merely a reasonable nuanced assessment of facts.
This is very reminiscent of Paxo's [wikipedia.org] famous BBC interview, in which he repeated the same question twelve times when the politician dodged the question. I think it's a good thing to do.
Which was between Michael Howard (then Home Secretary) and Jeremy Paxman. It ran like this :
HOWARD. Mr Marriot was not suspended. I was entitled to express my views, I was entitled to be consulted . . PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ? HOWARD. I . . I . . was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis, and I did not instruct him. PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ? HOWARD. The truth of the matter is that Mr Marriot was not suspended. I . . PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ? HOWARD. . . . did not ..overrule Derek Lewis. PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ? HOWARD. I took advice on what I could or could not do . . PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him Mr Howard ? HOWARD. . . and I acted scrupulously in accordance with that advice, I did NOT overrule Derek Lewis . . PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ? HOWARD. . . Mr Marriot was not suspended. PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ? HOWARD. (pauses). I have accounted for my decision to dismiss Derek Lewis . . PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ? HOWARD. . . in great detail, before the House of Commons . . PAXMAN. (Interrupting) I note that you're not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him. HOWARD. Well, the important aspect of this which is very clear to bear in mind . . PAXMAN. (Interrupting) I'm sorry, I'm going to be frightfully rude, I'm sorry, but it's a straight yes or no question which requires a straight yes or no answer. Did you threaten to overrule him ? HOWARD. I discussed this matter with Derek Lewis. I gave him the benefit of my opinion. I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language. But I did not instruct him because I was not ENTITLED to instruct him, I was entitled to express my opinion, and that is what I did. PAXMAN. With respect, that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him. HOWARD. It's dealing with the relevant point, which is what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do, and I have dealt in detail with this before the House of Commons and before the Select Committee. PAXMAN. With respect, you haven't answered the question of whether you threatened to overrule him. HOWARD. Well you see . . the question is what was I entitled to do and what was I not entitled to do. I was not entitled to instruct him, and I did not do that. PAXMAN. Uh . . we'll leave that aspect there.
Had Labour presented a set of policies that enthused the public, had Labour acted in an honest and open manner, they would have attracted the active support of more than one person in five.
Really? On what evidence do you base that assertion?
Once again, when one attempts to interpret the behaviour of the apathetic to support your opinion, you're on dangerous ground. Most pre-election polls said that the main reason that non-voters were not going to vote because the result was never in doubt. That means that potential Labour voters did not feel the need to become active. We'll never know how many non-voters of them would've voted Labour, had they been forced to vote.
It's extremely misleading (and in your case completely groundless) to read a deep political message into the non-involvement of a section of the population.
This government was elected with the active support of less than one person in five.
Semantics. Attempting to count non-voters as votes against is utterly moronic.
Denying it authority and legitimacy.
You keep using those words. They don't mean what you think they mean. This government certainly does not have an absolute majority of support.
However, it has both authority (a position of power; in possession of power over others. -- OED) and legitimacy (conformant to law or rule; sanctioned or authorized by law or right; lawful -- OED).
You can criticise "First Past The Post" as much as you like, and I'll agree (I'm a Lib Dem supporter, so I'm obliged). But while that remains the electoral system mandated by British law, any government elected by that system has both authority and legitimacy.
I'm not sure quite how these two Mr Blairs manage to live together in the same skull. Libertarian and fascist in one.
Firstly, there's no reason why one should follow a single school of thought on all issues. That kind of reductionism is counter-productive. Secondly, you've missed the -ism that encapsulates both of those ideas : populism. Those ideas are both very popular.
However ideologically vapid it is, there is something to be said for governments doing what the majority want them to do.
Slashdot Mirror
That's freaky. You post a link to OLGA and my name (nearly) at the top (I'm Gareth Owen, not Owens, but that is me they're refering to). Grrrrr...
Those of us who are ancient will remember that that's happened before. In the mid-1990s, the Harry Fox Agency (IIRC) threatened to sue the OnLine Guitar Archive (OLGA) for illegally reproducing lyrics without permission. Many lyrics were partially excised as a result, but the threatened death of online guitar resources failed to happen...
So if you ever get a tab sheet were you get the first word of a line and a sequence of dots instead of the lyrics, now you know why.
Well, here's some balance for you : The Guardian on why OpenOffice sucks so badly.
Because being cautious and circumspect about not including faddish new words doesn't get you free puff pieces masquerading as news articles.
You're right : That's way less funny than mine :)
Let me be the first to say: that's not actually funny. Is it even a joke?
Why would a mammal cause France to surrender? What's the historical analogy? Is this from the Fox News version of "The Daily Show"? What gives?
You can't create jokes by adding cliches to news stories.
New mammal found : "It's A Trap" says Akbar -- not funny
New mammal found : "GWB can't pronounce its name" -- not funny
New mammal found in Indonesia : US Govt pleased since they won't have to ship it to Indonesia in order to torture it as a Terror suspect -- not funny
Don't give up the day job.
So, let's review.
i) Slashdot is made of different people
ii) Many of those people hold different opinions
Err, that's it.
You, sir, are an idiot.
What a long, strange trip it's been...
So given that short trips are easy, and big targets are easy, Fitt's Law tells me that the round trip for my mouse can either be
i) A long way to a big target (moderately easy) + a long way to a small target (hard).
or
ii) A short way to a small target (moderately easy) and a short way to a small target (moderately easy).
And yet, Apple weenies would have us believe that (i) is preferable to (ii)!
I was browsing a baseball site the other day and they kept using terms like "suicide squeeze" and "relief pitcher". Bastards.
Clue : If you're reading a tech news site with a leaning to Linux, it'll probably help to have some idea of the latest major developments in technology, as they relate to Linux. If you don't know what Xen is, or what a virtual server is, it's not as if it's hard to find out
Err no.
Everytime there's an new release that is not just bugfixes, they increase the release number by one. Usually, this involves a certain breakage of backwards compatibility. That way, I know that FC4.2 and FC4.1 use compatible packages, and that FC5.0 might not.
I think that falls under the category of "not rocket science".
Although he has resigned, the 17 identical copies of Prof. Hwang will continue to do his research for him.
How did "sees silver lining in botnet cloud" become "Botnets a Good Sign".
The official quite clearly said "I'm not saying bots are a good thing".
Still, at least it wasn't a dupe.
Similarly, if a NIH official pointed out that "The rise of obesity in the West is better than malnutrition", that wouldn't be a endorsement of obesity, merely a reasonable nuanced assessment of facts.
HOWARD. Mr Marriot was not suspended. I was entitled to express my views, I was entitled to be consulted . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. I . . I . . was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis, and I did not instruct him.
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. The truth of the matter is that Mr Marriot was not suspended. I . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. . . . did not .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. I took advice on what I could or could not do . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him Mr Howard ?
HOWARD. . . and I acted scrupulously in accordance with that advice, I did NOT overrule Derek Lewis . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. . . Mr Marriot was not suspended.
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. (pauses). I have accounted for my decision to dismiss Derek Lewis . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. . . in great detail, before the House of Commons . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) I note that you're not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him.
HOWARD. Well, the important aspect of this which is very clear to bear in mind . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) I'm sorry, I'm going to be frightfully rude, I'm sorry, but it's a straight yes or no question which requires a straight yes or no answer. Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. I discussed this matter with Derek Lewis. I gave him the benefit of my opinion. I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language. But I did not instruct him because I was not ENTITLED to instruct him, I was entitled to express my opinion, and that is what I did.
PAXMAN. With respect, that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him.
HOWARD. It's dealing with the relevant point, which is what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do, and I have dealt in detail with this before the House of Commons and before the Select Committee.
PAXMAN. With respect, you haven't answered the question of whether you threatened to overrule him.
HOWARD. Well you see . . the question is what was I entitled to do and what was I not entitled to do. I was not entitled to instruct him, and I did not do that.
PAXMAN. Uh . . we'll leave that aspect there.
Once again, when one attempts to interpret the behaviour of the apathetic to support your opinion, you're on dangerous ground. Most pre-election polls said that the main reason that non-voters were not going to vote because the result was never in doubt. That means that potential Labour voters did not feel the need to become active. We'll never know how many non-voters of them would've voted Labour, had they been forced to vote.
It's extremely misleading (and in your case completely groundless) to read a deep political message into the non-involvement of a section of the population.
However, it has both authority (a position of power; in possession of power over others. -- OED) and legitimacy (conformant to law or rule; sanctioned or authorized by law or right; lawful -- OED).
You can criticise "First Past The Post" as much as you like, and I'll agree (I'm a Lib Dem supporter, so I'm obliged). But while that remains the electoral system mandated by British law, any government elected by that system has both authority and legitimacy.
The 2005 Labour conference was held at the Brighton Hilton Metropole, owned by the Hilton Hotel Group.
Public property, my arse.
However ideologically vapid it is, there is something to be said for governments doing what the majority want them to do.