Please: the emacs kill-ring works far better than the Mac-style "clipboards" -- you can store multiple things in the kill-ring, and pop them off of the stack in sequence (kind of like an *actual* clipboard, to echo one of Ted Nelson's complaints about the Mac-- I mean a clipboard with a really tiny clip that only holds one page? That's good old elegant Zen-master Jobs for you... )
BLOCKQUOTE>
Anyone you had a previous bussiness relationship or contact with can call....The last one is really abused
Yup. When there's only one company left int he United States, it's going to seem pretty silly. How can you avoid having a relationship with GoogZonApple?
Speaking of which, does anyone know a good way to revert libgtk? I'd like my old scrollbars back in firefox. And the old File-Save dialog was a hell of a lot better...
I was wondering if firefox under MATE might work better.
I'm pretty critical of wikipedia, but where they win is that even though any given article is likely to be written by hired-guns promoting their masters opinions, the very fact that they have to pretend to sound kind-of sort-of neutral forces them to tone down their act somewhat to the point where what they're saying has to be at least comprehensible.
Compare tech industry advertising copy to wikipedia pages about corporate products... there's something to be said for comprehensible bullshit.
There are a hell of a lot of us who gave up on writing for wikipedia for reasons like that.] Working on wikipedia pages is like being locked in a room with madmen who you are supposed to pretend can be reasoned with. If you do get the attention of a moderator, they're guaranteed to do the most shallow reading of the situation possible (e.g. ban the flamer, but the not the flame-baiter). Jimmy Wales used to like to say that working on wikipedia should be fun but you need a phenomenally weird idea of "fun" to think that it is.
But this doesn't even scratch the surface of the real problem with things like wikipedia-- with freely available, unverified accounts you have only two choices (1) be so trivial no one cares about you (2) get gamed by armies of well-funded sock-puppet brigades.
Speaking for myself, I'd rather have a page for the series as a whole, and occasional articles for particularly note-worthy episodes-- that way the pages themselves would be more interesting to read than they would be if you let anal-retentive competists add (probably automatically generated) pages for each individual episode.
But on the other-hand, i can't say that I really care, either.
There are pop-ups everywhere, for every damn thing imaginable-- they're always bugging you to sign up for a mailing list or some damn thing. The current generation of site designers seems to feel no site is complete without an annoying JS popup.
I've essentially stopped trying to read anything at medium.com because they keep bugging me to do something.
You realize a screen isn't a static place to print text, right? You can have multiple windows open at once?
No, no, the world is a cellphone, you get one window at a time, and it's always maximized. Thinking about supporting anything else is really, really hard.
Wikipedia relies on a horde of, let's say "normal" people to act as a check on the small groups of crazies-- that works fine as long as the small groups are really small. If it's *not* a small group of crazies, if it's a larger group of well-funded propagandists intent on subverting the process, there is next to nothing they can do. TotallyNotRussian makes an edit, it gets reverted, NyetNotRussianEither restores the edit, they take a straw poll-- MerkinToTheCore, AccentIsPerfect, and RahRahUSA all side with the original edit...
On the plus side, wikipedia (and to some extent, slashdot) would be difficult to subvert with a hundred bogus accounts you opened yesterday-- you'd need to have some foresight and get the accounts set-up with the necessary reputation via a period of good behavior. Those defenses are all pretty weak *if* the system is important, and regarded as a big enough prize.
The main difference between slashdot and reddit is that reddit is more popular-- no site that relies on free, unverified accounts to do moderation can avoid being gamed *if* someone with deep enough pockets-- or possibly a large brigade of volunteers-- is interested in gaming it.
Next question: why are we continually trying to use toy sites without the most elementary steps taking to prevent them from being subverted? One answer:they're ad-supported, and they're desperate for traffic, and doing anything at all to verify identities would cut traffic way down.
But... that answer doesn't explain why a non-profit institution like wikipedia refuses to guard against subversion-- denial is a powerful force even when it doesn't have money reinforcing it.
Upload them to a child porn site while you're at it.
Google's new AI-enhanced image processing combined with unencrypted trafficing can automatically identify naked baby photos and upload them to child porn sites without any intervention on your part-- tremendously convenient, with your deniability completely protected./P
The short answer is "no Xanadu didn't ship"-- it got a strong,
well-funded development push from Autodesk in the 80s, but then it
got second-systemed to death (Eric Drexler convinced them to
re-write everything around a new data structure he invented). Ted
Nelson wasn't in charge of development at that point, if you care,
so "did *he* ship?" isn't exactly the right question.
There are some interesting demo videos recorded around then-- they
were evidently playing it up as a kind of word-processor with fancy
versioning and diffing features (remember: no one knew about the
internet yet).
You need to learn a lot more about Xanadu before you complain about
it's security vulnerabilities-- the original Xanadu idea involved a
single operating company that you would've needed to provide with
financial information: it wasn't like a typical web site that
allows multiple free accounts that are effectively anonymous.
Because the corporate masters of our robot overlords always have our best interests at heart, I am sure the traffic court judge will suddenly dispense with the police officers testimony on their say so.
The company in this case is making up a rule about the distance
from the pedestrian being critical (and asking us to trust it's
assessment that the ped was 10 feet away). The actually rules
have nothing to do with distance:
Respect the right-of-way of pedestrians. Always stop for any pedestrian crossing at corners or other crosswalks, even if the crosswalk is in the middle of the block, a
[...]
Remember, if a pedestrian makes eye contact with you, they are ready to cross the street. Yield to the pedestrian.
Can't their AI tell when someone is making eye-contact?
Japanese photo-booths have been able to find human eyes for years now.
Slashdot Mirror
But you'd be allowed to invent new ones on the fly. No one who knows the syntax for "defun" would ever lose.
And never adopted any new cliches, either.
angel-o-sphere is anti-emacs: what other endorsement do you need?
Please: the emacs kill-ring works far better than the Mac-style "clipboards" -- you can store multiple things in the kill-ring, and pop them off of the stack in sequence (kind of like an *actual* clipboard, to echo one of Ted Nelson's complaints about the Mac-- I mean a clipboard with a really tiny clip that only holds one page? That's good old elegant Zen-master Jobs for you... )
What emacs really needs is a good web browser. I've heard it suggested that it should really include WebKit--
BLOCKQUOTE> Anyone you had a previous bussiness relationship or contact with can call. ...The last one is really abused
Yup. When there's only one company left int he United States, it's going to seem pretty silly. How can you avoid having a relationship with GoogZonApple?
dired, you posers.
Speaking of which, does anyone know a good way to revert libgtk? I'd like my old scrollbars back in firefox. And the old File-Save dialog was a hell of a lot better...
I was wondering if firefox under MATE might work better.
I wouldn't think so-- you can look forward to more ego and "we know best" design decisions.
You can also look forward to the "mystery" leaking just when they've gotten addicted to the sugar.
*ssssh...*
Explain to me why unverified accounts are a good idea.
I'm seeing that a lot from people who are unwilling to say why.
My theory is that most people on-line are screwing-off at work and don't want their boss to know it.
I'm pretty critical of wikipedia, but where they win is that even though any given article is likely to be written by hired-guns promoting their masters opinions, the very fact that they have to pretend to sound kind-of sort-of neutral forces them to tone down their act somewhat to the point where what they're saying has to be at least comprehensible.
Compare tech industry advertising copy to wikipedia pages about corporate products... there's something to be said for comprehensible bullshit.
There are a hell of a lot of us who gave up on writing for wikipedia for reasons like that.] Working on wikipedia pages is like being locked in a room with madmen who you are supposed to pretend can be reasoned with. If you do get the attention of a moderator, they're guaranteed to do the most shallow reading of the situation possible (e.g. ban the flamer, but the not the flame-baiter). Jimmy Wales used to like to say that working on wikipedia should be fun but you need a phenomenally weird idea of "fun" to think that it is.
But this doesn't even scratch the surface of the real problem with things like wikipedia-- with freely available, unverified accounts you have only two choices (1) be so trivial no one cares about you (2) get gamed by armies of well-funded sock-puppet brigades.
Speaking for myself, I'd rather have a page for the series as a whole, and occasional articles for particularly note-worthy episodes-- that way the pages themselves would be more interesting to read than they would be if you let anal-retentive competists add (probably automatically generated) pages for each individual episode.
But on the other-hand, i can't say that I really care, either.
Talk about disgruntled autistics-- touch of OCD?
There are pop-ups everywhere, for every damn thing imaginable-- they're always bugging you to sign up for a mailing list or some damn thing. The current generation of site designers seems to feel no site is complete without an annoying JS popup. I've essentially stopped trying to read anything at medium.com because they keep bugging me to do something.
My take is anyone who cares a lot about what someone else's surgical mods has a mental illness.
No, no, the world is a cellphone, you get one window at a time, and it's always maximized. Thinking about supporting anything else is really, really hard.
Because supporting multiple sized screens is so haaaaard.
(We are user design experts, why won't they believe that we know what's best for them?)
Wikipedia relies on a horde of, let's say "normal" people to act as a check on the small groups of crazies-- that works fine as long as the small groups are really small. If it's *not* a small group of crazies, if it's a larger group of well-funded propagandists intent on subverting the process, there is next to nothing they can do. TotallyNotRussian makes an edit, it gets reverted, NyetNotRussianEither restores the edit, they take a straw poll-- MerkinToTheCore, AccentIsPerfect, and RahRahUSA all side with the original edit... On the plus side, wikipedia (and to some extent, slashdot) would be difficult to subvert with a hundred bogus accounts you opened yesterday-- you'd need to have some foresight and get the accounts set-up with the necessary reputation via a period of good behavior. Those defenses are all pretty weak *if* the system is important, and regarded as a big enough prize.
The main difference between slashdot and reddit is that reddit is more popular-- no site that relies on free, unverified accounts to do moderation can avoid being gamed *if* someone with deep enough pockets-- or possibly a large brigade of volunteers-- is interested in gaming it.
Next question: why are we continually trying to use toy sites without the most elementary steps taking to prevent them from being subverted? One answer:they're ad-supported, and they're desperate for traffic, and doing anything at all to verify identities would cut traffic way down.
But... that answer doesn't explain why a non-profit institution like wikipedia refuses to guard against subversion-- denial is a powerful force even when it doesn't have money reinforcing it.
Google's new AI-enhanced image processing combined with unencrypted trafficing can automatically identify naked baby photos and upload them to child porn sites without any intervention on your part-- tremendously convenient, with your deniability completely protected. /P
The short answer is "no Xanadu didn't ship"-- it got a strong, well-funded development push from Autodesk in the 80s, but then it got second-systemed to death (Eric Drexler convinced them to re-write everything around a new data structure he invented). Ted Nelson wasn't in charge of development at that point, if you care, so "did *he* ship?" isn't exactly the right question.
There are some interesting demo videos recorded around then-- they were evidently playing it up as a kind of word-processor with fancy versioning and diffing features (remember: no one knew about the internet yet).
You need to learn a lot more about Xanadu before you complain about it's security vulnerabilities-- the original Xanadu idea involved a single operating company that you would've needed to provide with financial information: it wasn't like a typical web site that allows multiple free accounts that are effectively anonymous.
Because the corporate masters of our robot overlords always have our best interests at heart, I am sure the traffic court judge will suddenly dispense with the police officers testimony on their say so.
The company in this case is making up a rule about the distance from the pedestrian being critical (and asking us to trust it's assessment that the ped was 10 feet away). The actually rules have nothing to do with distance:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...
Can't their AI tell when someone is making eye-contact? Japanese photo-booths have been able to find human eyes for years now.