This is nothing more than policy creation by polls, something the current US admin strongly criticized the previous one on.
Further, who is going to be using this system? In general it seems to underscore the point that just about anyone can be a "middle east expert".
If they were really interested in terrorism, the events to be on would be worldwide. The fact that it isn't further points out the politics that are really running the show here.
"If Iraqi's knew, for example, how peaceful life is in America, even for people like them, perhaps the few who hate us would be more likely to want to bring the same peace to Iraq, rather than deprive us of it."
Actually, the world might be much better off it the situation turns out to be the other way around...
Plus, what type of "democracy" are you talking about? What makes you think that what the end result will be anything different than the US-puppet-government-gone-wrong that is currently there?
"To move the great mass of people to fight will take far more abusive measures than have yet been taken." (or that the people are aware of or understand)
Maybe all such data could be captured in the Total Information Awareness database, resulting in a "Patriot Quotient".
The president by executive decree weighs in at a perfect 1.0. Everyone else falls in line afterwards. All purchases online or through credit card increase or decrease your quotient based on an evaluation of a congressional subcommittee.
He obviously didn't have to write lame answers to lame questions, he chose to do so. If the questions are lame and it is your intent to be funny, then just don't answer those questions.
Maybe/. could interview itself and see if it come up with funnier responses...
Some people are just plain unhappy if the US and its leeches aren't at the top of the list with all of its enemies at the bottom...irrelevant of the content.
Crawl out from underneath your rock and begin the process of trying to look at the world objectively (no one will get there truely, but it is better than standing still).
Even more strange is that some items have alt tags and some don't. Obviously they thought enough to do it in some places, but didn't take the time to do it completely.
It probably cost more to pay the lawyers than the time it would have taken to bring the page up to accessibility standards.
Meanwhile, a SW competitor could advertise itself as being accessible-friendly and do quite well for itself (even if it is for the PR).
The article is very good and brings up a point that I have been seeing in my latest cd purchases. I haven't bought a top40 cd in a long time, but now that there is greater access to music online, I'm buying many cd's from bands I have never heard of previously.
The number of cd's that I have bought has gone up, but they aren't any of the one's that are being promoted by these companies. I really wonder if these count in the sales numbers or not...
"Unpatriotic"...Whether you agree with that statement or not, could you possibly entertain the thought that having a dissenting opinion and expressing it is patriotic in and of itself? I would rather have someone thinking about what may be best for a country rather than falling in lock-step with some patriotic propaganda machine.
There is so much bias on this so called "news" channel it is unbelievable. The people that they have as callers are merely regurgitating exactly what they are told.
Guide for News Programs: 1. Journalists are not news sources. They are not a credible source of any factual information and are no different than anyone walking the street, except they have a camera / mic in front of them. These people have no particular credibility on most subjects and the average/.'er could be just as valid.
2. Callers are not news sources. This is a classical advertising scheme where you can pitch a product based on the endorsement of people that are similar to the target audience. "If Bob from Iowa thinks that way, then it must be true".
3. If you need to have a guest on so that you can debate "both sides", you are biased. Too many of these shows don't need two guests on each side of an issue because the commentator already represents the other.
Please, the only reason that you can make the above statements is that you are not yet part of a group that has been labeled "terrorists" by the US.
You are differentiating between the deaths of "families and friends" by the sole justification that you can call those people "terrorists". When it becomes the political will to call a group "terrorists" is when their deaths become justified?
You have even bought the line that terrorism is not a act by an individual or group, but is the responsibility of a whole nation, race, or religion. Whatever is most convenient based on the accuracy of your bombs.
Seems to me that all of the bombing and destruction going on right now can be defined as terrorism. What is the purpose of blowing something up anyway? Destroy the people or their property, such that the people left living obey your political will.
All of this death and talk of justification is really just word play and politics. The sooner that is realized, the sooner the world will be much better off.
What is being developed here is an institutionalized system to document all the attributes of people which scare "us regular, hardworking Americans". If by chance you meet a particular attribute you are immediately suspected of being a "terrorist". Please!
(heavy sarcasm...)
First check off all "foreigners". Well not all of them, per the current administration, only those from "evil" countries. You know the ones that look "different" from "us". Start by asking yourself now what it means to be "different" and who the norm is being used to define "us".
Also if you have even been to any of the previously mentioned countries, you are a "terrorist". The only need to go to any such country is to associate with someone who lives in that country, which by previous definition is a terrorist. Now you have documented ties to terrorists.
The./ test, check to see if someone has more vowels than consonants or is otherwise unpronouncable. Those names are just scary and all the terrorists that they show on TV have those names, so anyone else with that name is scary regardless of their individual behaviour.
As a subset to this rule, if your name is "Mohammed" you are a terrorist regardless of the vowel / consonant ratio.
Now let's see what else is suspectible. Since we are tracking behaviors, we can see all people that may have eaten at an Indian / Pakistani or other restaurant with "strange food". Only those foreigners, previously defined as terrorists, eat that stuff and there were probably some there as well, terrorist ties again.
This could go on and on. Start asking yourself who is defining the list of behaviors and what is really behind their motivation.
By the way, don't happen to ask yourself outloud, because remember that based on current policy "you are either for us or against us". To question implies that you are not for "us" and are therefore subject to having to prove your patriotism.
To all those people that think such profiling is a good thing are merely hiding behind their insecurities. They are also usually the people that are in the current "us" group, safely hiding behind the policies that define the "them" group. Someday, if not already, these people will find themselves in the "them" group, if not defined by an "us" in the States but by some "us" in the World. This is the start of a very viscious and dangerous cycle by which we are all profiled and assumed to be suspicious people by some group out there, and in the end no one is safe.
A good first test of whether you really need these names anymore is just remove the location toolbar from view on your browser. How often do you really need to type in a domain name directly anyway? If so, how about typing it in Google and "I'm feeling lucky"...
Unfortunately, many (not all) programmers and many readers here assume user centered design / ease of use == dumbing down the system.
Performing UCD work promotes ease of use, which simply means software that meets your requirements and allows you to perform your tasks effectively. Problems arise when you design for the wrong target audience.
In many instances, UCD is at odds with programmers who are more interested in developing new function. If software was designed with the user in mind to begin with, we could avoid quite a bit of reworking of interfaces.
By the way, having a GUI!=ease of use, being able to change themes!=ease of use.
Slashdot Mirror
This is nothing more than policy creation by polls, something the current US admin strongly criticized the previous one on.
Further, who is going to be using this system? In general it seems to underscore the point that just about anyone can be a "middle east expert".
If they were really interested in terrorism, the events to be on would be worldwide. The fact that it isn't further points out the politics that are really running the show here.
Front... /* i am the license for the menu */
Back
(duh)
Or does the Senator own the copyright to that statement as well...
"If Iraqi's knew, for example, how peaceful life is in America, even for people like them, perhaps the few who hate us would be more likely to want to bring the same peace to Iraq, rather than deprive us of it."
Actually, the world might be much better off it the situation turns out to be the other way around...
"Democracies do not wage wars of aggression."
**** Have you checked the news today? *****
Plus, what type of "democracy" are you talking about? What makes you think that what the end result will be anything different than the US-puppet-government-gone-wrong that is currently there?
The most premium service...a spell checker.
"To move the great mass of people to fight will take far more abusive measures than have yet been taken." (or that the people are aware of or understand)
Maybe all such data could be captured in the Total Information Awareness database, resulting in a "Patriot Quotient".
The president by executive decree weighs in at a perfect 1.0. Everyone else falls in line afterwards. All purchases online or through credit card increase or decrease your quotient based on an evaluation of a congressional subcommittee.
He obviously didn't have to write lame answers to lame questions, he chose to do so. If the questions are lame and it is your intent to be funny, then just don't answer those questions.
/. could interview itself and see if it come up with funnier responses...
Maybe
Fantastic pictures...
/. story icon...
"A chicken mortality is placed in the machine...the chicken is ground to the consistency of oily cotton".
The guy dropping the chicken into this machine is certainly inspiration for a
Have the computer develop tests that could distinguish between human and computer answers.
This test was obviously designed by a human as it doesn't seem to be very useful in make such a determination.
What a politically motivated post!
Some people are just plain unhappy if the US and its leeches aren't at the top of the list with all of its enemies at the bottom...irrelevant of the content.
Crawl out from underneath your rock and begin the process of trying to look at the world objectively (no one will get there truely, but it is better than standing still).
Actually those were just the talking points for the FOX "news" marketing campaign...
"We decide, you report"
Even more strange is that some items have alt tags and some don't. Obviously they thought enough to do it in some places, but didn't take the time to do it completely.
It probably cost more to pay the lawyers than the time it would have taken to bring the page up to accessibility standards.
Meanwhile, a SW competitor could advertise itself as being accessible-friendly and do quite well for itself (even if it is for the PR).
Dear Congressperson...Please find the enclosed...
Even better...On what seems to be the remnants of Caroline Woodham's (photographer's name just below picture):
www.svidaho.net/~cw/index/ GIF's/Apple%20Logo.gif
"Designed and Maintained on a Mac!"
with a big ol' penguin on the sale...Captain Torvolds...with first mate Perens painting "GNU Boat" on the back as they sail into the sunset...
Back to work now!
The article is very good and brings up a point that I have been seeing in my latest cd purchases. I haven't bought a top40 cd in a long time, but now that there is greater access to music online, I'm buying many cd's from bands I have never heard of previously.
The number of cd's that I have bought has gone up, but they aren't any of the one's that are being promoted by these companies. I really wonder if these count in the sales numbers or not...
"Unpatriotic"...Whether you agree with that statement or not, could you possibly entertain the thought that having a dissenting opinion and expressing it is patriotic in and of itself? I would rather have someone thinking about what may be best for a country rather than falling in lock-step with some patriotic propaganda machine.
Fox News: "We decide, you report"
/.'er could be just as valid.
....
There is so much bias on this so called "news" channel it is unbelievable. The people that they have as callers are merely regurgitating exactly what they are told.
Guide for News Programs:
1. Journalists are not news sources. They are not a credible source of any factual information and are no different than anyone walking the street, except they have a camera / mic in front of them. These people have no particular credibility on most subjects and the average
2. Callers are not news sources. This is a classical advertising scheme where you can pitch a product based on the endorsement of people that are similar to the target audience. "If Bob from Iowa thinks that way, then it must be true".
3. If you need to have a guest on so that you can debate "both sides", you are biased. Too many of these shows don't need two guests on each side of an issue because the commentator already represents the other.
4.
Please, the only reason that you can make the above statements is that you are not yet part of a group that has been labeled "terrorists" by the US.
You are differentiating between the deaths of "families and friends" by the sole justification that you can call those people "terrorists". When it becomes the political will to call a group "terrorists" is when their deaths become justified?
You have even bought the line that terrorism is not a act by an individual or group, but is the responsibility of a whole nation, race, or religion. Whatever is most convenient based on the accuracy of your bombs.
Seems to me that all of the bombing and destruction going on right now can be defined as terrorism. What is the purpose of blowing something up anyway? Destroy the people or their property, such that the people left living obey your political will.
All of this death and talk of justification is really just word play and politics. The sooner that is realized, the sooner the world will be much better off.
Of course the reverse is true as well, since you will be able to find out if all of those 7500 positive responses came from one domain (namely, MS).
Also, do they filter out the ones saying "I love microsoft!" as well?
What is being developed here is an institutionalized system to document all the attributes of people which scare "us regular, hardworking Americans". If by chance you meet a particular attribute you are immediately suspected of being a "terrorist". Please!
./ test, check to see if someone has more vowels than consonants or is otherwise unpronouncable. Those names are just scary and all the terrorists that they show on TV have those names, so anyone else with that name is scary regardless of their individual behaviour.
(heavy sarcasm...)
First check off all "foreigners". Well not all of them, per the current administration, only those from "evil" countries. You know the ones that look "different" from "us". Start by asking yourself now what it means to be "different" and who the norm is being used to define "us".
Also if you have even been to any of the previously mentioned countries, you are a "terrorist". The only need to go to any such country is to associate with someone who lives in that country, which by previous definition is a terrorist. Now you have documented ties to terrorists.
The
As a subset to this rule, if your name is "Mohammed" you are a terrorist regardless of the vowel / consonant ratio.
Now let's see what else is suspectible. Since we are tracking behaviors, we can see all people that may have eaten at an Indian / Pakistani or other restaurant with "strange food". Only those foreigners, previously defined as terrorists, eat that stuff and there were probably some there as well, terrorist ties again.
This could go on and on. Start asking yourself who is defining the list of behaviors and what is really behind their motivation.
By the way, don't happen to ask yourself outloud, because remember that based on current policy "you are either for us or against us". To question implies that you are not for "us" and are therefore subject to having to prove your patriotism.
To all those people that think such profiling is a good thing are merely hiding behind their insecurities. They are also usually the people that are in the current "us" group, safely hiding behind the policies that define the "them" group. Someday, if not already, these people will find themselves in the "them" group, if not defined by an "us" in the States but by some "us" in the World. This is the start of a very viscious and dangerous cycle by which we are all profiled and assumed to be suspicious people by some group out there, and in the end no one is safe.
A good first test of whether you really need these names anymore is just remove the location toolbar from view on your browser. How often do you really need to type in a domain name directly anyway? If so, how about typing it in Google and "I'm feeling lucky"...
"And at the end of the five-year period, if Microsoft reverts to its old tactics ... well, they'll be just as illegal in the future as they are now."
No visible sign of change in behavior / practice now...how does one measure such a change five years from now (or expect one)?
Unfortunately, many (not all) programmers and many readers here assume user centered design / ease of use == dumbing down the system.
Performing UCD work promotes ease of use, which simply means software that meets your requirements and allows you to perform your tasks effectively. Problems arise when you design for the wrong target audience.
In many instances, UCD is at odds with programmers who are more interested in developing new function. If software was designed with the user in mind to begin with, we could avoid quite a bit of reworking of interfaces.
By the way, having a GUI!=ease of use, being able to change themes!=ease of use.