By the by, I'd also like to mention that some 60% of the English speaking world speaks the American English dialect compared to only about 15-20% that use the Commonwealth English dialect.
By this, I meant native speakers of course. I wasn't able to find a reliable source for non-native speakers, which I would imagine is a bit more even due to British colonization, pidgins, creoles etc.
Why do people in the US persist in spelling the word "neighbour" as neighbor?
Why not go the whole hog and write: nabur or naybur?
Because if we spelled it with a U, we would have failed our 5th grade spelling tests.
Seriously, you do realize that in the US we speak a dialect of English called "American English"? And that what you apparently speak is a dialect called "Commonwealth English"? Since they are different dialects, the rules of written and verbal speech are considered independent of each other and not incorrect as they relate to the other dialect. Our dialect dropped the U from many words almost 200 years ago, in addition to many other spelling changes.
By the by, I'd also like to mention that some 60% of the English speaking world speaks the American English dialect compared to only about 15-20% that use the Commonwealth English dialect. So, I'd say that we rather outnumber you, too bad old chap.
P.S. Do you still spell music with a k? How about wagon, still using 2 G's? Those were the "proper" british spellings of those words back in the early 1800s when the US changed them up (due in large part to Webster's dictionary, perhaps you've heard of it?) Odd how you Brits changed the spellings of some of your words, but left others in that have nothing to do with pronounciation.
Yes. And any time the government regulates speech, it is by definition, regulating speech that the government disapproves of. If the government wants to regulate pornography or violent video games, then those forms of expression should be protected from unreasonable governmental intrusion just as "purely political speech" is.
Umm, you completely ignored and put aside his point. Freedom of Speech was put into the 1st amendment for the sole purpose of allowing Lese Majeste (Lese Majeste means speaking against the king or in this case the government). Specifically, the states wanted this freedom so that if the current government became corrupted like the English monarchy/parliament, then they would not be thrown in jail for saying so. It was not intended to protect the press from printing whatever they pleased or protecting their sources or pornography or flag burning or any such thing. These were interpretations added in later. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have these freedoms, but that the original poster was correct and you completely side-stepped his arguement.
As to your point. Lumping pornography and games into the same category as writing about injustices is ridiculous. They are apples and oranges, please stop throwing out Larry Flynt's views on the world.
Also, when the "rights" of an individual in regards to free speech begins to tread on the rights of other individuals (such as parental rights.. or even religious rights in conflict with another's "free speech" rights), where does the line get drawn? Who's rights prevail? In most cases, parental rights have prevailed.... How's that for precendence!"
Meaningless, since you don't provide any examples. With regard to the CDA, parents rights did not prevail. What's your counterpoint?
The examples are pretty self evident: legal drinking age, home schooling, forced religious observance at school, marriage before the age of consent (most states allow this with the parent's consent), the list goes on, but those are the ones that stick out since they have all been challenged at the legislative/judicial level.
Many (not all) the ammendments stuck on to the constitution, and the laws added creating this spagetti legal system of ours... they were to try and deal with the situations where this Bill of Rights just isn't realistic!"
I don't know which Constitution you are looking at, but the one I have has mostly additions to the Bill of Rights (with the mistake of Prohibition being the only exception). You have the 13th Amendment giving us the right to not be enslaved. The 14th Amendment giving us equal protection and expanding the Bill of Rights to the states. You've got the 15th Amendment giving all men the right to vote. The 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote... etc.
First and foremost, the Bill of Rights is not part of the constitution itself, it is the first 10 amendments that were added after the constitution was created and ratified. Perhaps you understand this, but your phrasing reads as if you don't realize this. I mention this for a reason, every amendment that adds something that wasn't already there, adds to the constitution, not the Bill of Rights, which itself adds to the constitution. Now, if you are talking about the 17 amendments after the Bill of Rights, which I think you are, then only a few actually "add" anything, most are alterations of existing wording. So in this case, I think you are both wrong, the Bill of Rights added many things, but the remainder of the amendments mostly modified what was already there. And by the way, I think you missed his point, what I think he was getting at was that the Bill of Rights should not be considered the end-all-be-all of our rights, but more of a starting ground that we work things out from there. Which is exactly what it has been as so proven by your comments about pornography and video games, neither of which
Alright, I tried to resist commenting on this and couldn't.
First and foremost, the legal drinking age in the US isn't 21, 21 is the legal age for purchasing and posessing alcohol in public. The difference is that people under the age of 21 can still drink alcohol, they just can't buy it themselves and can't drink in public.
1. Can't really argue with you on that one.
2. Unintended consequences
1. Sorry, but drugs are the choice of date rapists (GHB and Rohypnol are the most common). It's a lot easier to slip one of these into a girl's soda or whatever she's drinking than to get her drunk enough that she can't fight a guy off.
2. Fake IDs? How does teenagers buying fake IDs make it easier for criminals to get fake IDs? That doesn't even make sense.
3. I assume that you're talking about the US here? Since the majority of Americans do not live within walking distance of a bar (I couldn't find a link to the statistic on that one, but I see it all the time from the MADD and SADD people) this arguement is invalid as it applies to underage and legal drinking.
4. Get in trouble for drinking? What does that have to do with drinking before the age of 21? That just reflects on the morals of your parents. How would changing the law change your parents opinions on you getting drunk? Are you suggesting that adults base their morals off the laws of the land? If so, you really need to get out more and talk with people older than you.
5. OK, back to the previous reason, how would changing the legal age affect a school that is "dry"? Those schools don't allow people over 21 to drink on-campus do they? They aren't a "dry" campus because of the legal age, those schools were "dry" before the law was changed in the 80s (the Federal "suggestions"/laws were put in the 80s, some states had switched over prior to that) or they are "dry" now because of religious beliefs. Yes, I know that wasn't the original assertion. As far as calling the police or going to a hospital, anyone that doesn't seek emergency help because they were drinking is an idiot or is guilty of a crime worse than underage drinking.
3. BS rationalizations? Actually the number of vehicular accidents involving intoxicated people under 21 dropped significantly in the US when the laws were put in. And they were the cause of the majority of DWI accidents and they also accounted for the majority of fatalities in these accidents. Sorry, that's not a rationalization, that's cold hard fact. (I'll let somebody else add a link for the stats, I'm too lazy to look it up. But the differences were drastic before and after the laws)
4. Double standard? You obviously have not bothered looking up the punishments for the crimes. DWI/DUI have much more severe penalties than underage posession. In your example, the teenager would probably not be counted as DWI/DUI unless they had a very slow metabolism and didn't weigh much since they would be well under the legal limit. When I looked up the punishments for first offense underage drinking, it was typically a misdemeanor with a fine, possibly short term suspension of a license and possibly some community service. DWI/DUI in most states involves mandatory jail time, a hefty fine, mandatory license suspension/revoke, some community service and mandatory rehab. Also, most states offer the teenager an alcohol awareness class that allows them to slip out of the penalties and usually wipes the crime off of their record.
I'm afraid that your arguements are for the most part incredibly silly with a few good points brought in. Do I think that the law should be changed to 18? Maybe. Do I think that if it was changed that the alcohol related accidents would increase? Most definitely, probably double or triple. Do I think that the government has the right to pass laws that protect the general populace? Yes. Do I think that the current law has a detrimental effect on teenagers? Definitely not, what
And here I thought that an article that has something to with music might actually go without an inane and irrelevant comment from Indie Fanboy. What would a music-related topic be without a stupid comment about how Indie music is "better" than Non-Indie music?
You sir, have restored my faith in Slashdot silliness. Although, next time if you could also include something about how your worthless Mac couldn't be affected, the rest of us would really appreciate it. Thanks.
after I read this little nugget: most of my gaming is sadly done on a Mac.
Anyone that does their primary gaming on a Mac is not conversant with either current games or equipment. I'm not particularly interested in the opinions on a gaming laptop from someone that doesn't have a modern machine or play modern games.
"Except that's not what happened with the PS2. The PS2 had a largish initial supply that sold out in pre-orders, then a steady trickle of consoles about the size (if not larger) than what Microsoft is planning. The K-B Toys in my local mall, for example, had over 60 they sold as pre-orders, and then had about 10 a day from then on. Those additional 10 all sold out within an hour of when UPS arrived every day. There was no period where there were no units for a month."
Actually you're wrong about all of this. Sony received an initial shipment in from overseas where the units were manufactured, that was enough to cover all of their alloted pre-orders (meaning that each store said I will sell xxx pre-orders, and if the store didn't actually sell that amount of pre-orders, then Sony put those units into a seperate pile if you will), and also a certain number of extras to be sold as regular retail (the number each store was given of these extras was dependent on the size of the store, size of the market city, amount of PS1 console and game sales, plus number of committed pre-sales for the PS2). This shipment sold out within 1-4 days depending on the city, meaning that in some parts of the country it didn't sell as fast as others.
What happened afterwards is the interesting part. Sony then distributed all of those "slush" units that they had extra from the alloted, but unsold pre-orders. These went to the bigger markets where demand was high. Next, the stores themselves started to sell the pre-ordered units that had not been picked up yet. Meaning that K-B, ToysRUs, Best Buy etc took all of the pre-orders that were not paid in full (i.e. the customer only put down the minimum deposit required when they pre-ordered instead of paying for it all up front) and that weren't picked up in the first 2-3 days after product launch and either put them on the shelf or re-distributed them to other stores in bigger markets (Best Buy refunded my $50 since I was called out of town unexpectedly and couldn't get to the store within 3 days of the release). This is the real explanation of why you saw some units trickling into your local K-B, regardless of what the teenager working behind the counter told you the reason was.
Lastly, Sony did not receive a single shipment of PS2s for 4-6 weeks after the initial shipment, you can check with Sony on this (there were also tons of newspaper articles about this situation at the time, perhaps you read a local paper instead of a national paper?). This was caused by a lot of things coming together all at the same time. If I remember correctly there were: factory labor strikes, dock strikes, a minor coup in one of the countries, a ship that "went missing" in a storm and they also blamed some of it on exaggerated production capacities of a factory or 2.
"This is sorta the opposite case of Apple's move to x86- having only one major producer of PowerPC chips made Apple dependent upon IBM's capacity to produce the chips in the quantities they need at a good price."
This reason is of course complete and utter BS. IBM was always ahead of production of Apple and didn't gouge Apple on the procs. Motorola was the company that had supply issues with the previous generation of PPC chips.
Also your analogy has a major flaw in it. Moving to Intel hasn't changed the fact that they are still dealing with a single vendor for their processor. As far as price, you obviously haven't priced a Mac before, Apple has never had qualms about passing on additional costs to the customer. The switch to x86 processors will not bring the price of Macs down, it will just sell more Macs as everyone has to have the latest model.
Apple would've been smarter to partner with AMD, but Apple has never been about doing things intelligently, to them, looking cool is more important than any other consideration.
"But its an industry wide practice and not dishonest."
You apparently don't know what the word dishonest means, I recommend picking up a dictionary.
If Microsoft says, "We are sold out of Xbox 360s" then they are stating that they do not have any more units to sell to customers. Since the article states they will have more units to sell, then this is by definition a lie. The terms "lie" and "dishonesty" do actually mean the same thing in the business sense as they mean to the rest of the world, putting all rumors to the contrary aside.
Of course this is a perfect example of why the term "Business Ethics" is even more of a joke than "Military Intelligence". Your professors literally tried to teach you that it's OK to lie to customers and that it's not really a lie because everyone does it. Just because something is not specifically illegal, doesn't make it fair or ethical.
While the Germans did use the throat microphone in the PxKw III which they stopped using '42, I can't find any reference that mentions any later tanks using this system. I can't find anything indicates if they used them throughout the entire line or if it was limited to just a few models of this tank.
As an interesting note, the Germans didn't start testing their throat microphones until '37, a year after they were invented, in America. I'm not implying that they stole the design, it's very possible that they developed the idea in parrallel. They were originally tested on aircraft by the Germans, but only used in tanks. Whereas the Allies used them in bombers from '42 on.
As a linguist (meaning someone that speaks or studies multiple languages. I speak 4 very different languages, read another 3 and I have studied at various times over a dozen others), I couldn't help but laugh at your comments. Your comments are not only intentionally insulting, but incredibly misinformed. They obviously come from quite a bit of inexperience and a lot of anger towards native-english speakers.
"it always cracks me when people (usually stupid Americans) bitch about the Indian people's names being hard to pronounce"
Most of the time that people "bitch" about anyone's name being hard to pronounce comes from 2 reasons: first, the sounds are foreign and don't mesh into the languages that the person speaks, being mad at someone for this is asinine; second, the owner of the name says their name too fast for the other person to catch it all. When you introduce yourself, try saying your name intentionally slower than you think you need to, all of the sudden you will stop hearing people making small jokes about your name or creating nicknames for you. My last name is a very uncommon Irish surname and if I say it quickly, everyone mishears it as the name of a country (and yes, this includes every single Indian that I introduce myself to, and btw, I know a lot of Indian people).
"every language but English is phonetic"
This is not only untrue, but the reality is just the opposite. Most languages are not written phonetically and the very few that are usually transliterated from another alphabet or a written language did not exist previously. This is of course the case here with the name in question, it is Hindi transliterated to English, so of course it's spelled phonetically, however as many people pointed out you still have to know where to syllables are. Also, as somebody else pointed out, English is pretty phonetical with some exceptions.
"No other language has stupid rules where Y is 'sometimes' a vowel - where C is sometimes K - where "tongue" is pronounced "tung""
Wrong again. Almost every language has stupid rules like this. If you were to objectively look back at Hindi, I believe that there are a few stupid rules also (a good friend of mine mentioned a few to me once, but they escape me at the moment. As I never quite got to a conversational level in Hindustani, a dialect of Hindi spoken in Fiji by about a third of the people there, I wouldn't be able to point things like that out myself). This point again shows that you have a very limited understanding of other languages and linguistics itself.
"You're probably just too stupid to try rather than too stupid to actually pronounce it."
First and foremost, speaking multiple languages has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Many of the smartest people in the world only speak one language (and no, I'm not including only English speakers in this statement). And there are many people that are barely smart enough to exist above a handicapped state that speak more than 1 language. Also, not attempting to pronounce a word/name has nothing to do with intelligence. It can have something to do with fear or as is the case most often, embarrasment or simply not wanting to insult someone by mispronouncing their name. Just as an aside, pointing out someone else's lack of intelligence usually is an attempt to hide one's own lack of intelligence, this is a well understood and documented physicological effect.
"but, in general, if you just say it one syllable at a time 2 or 3 times, the emphasis will present itself for you."
Actually, this is not the case here. Since the syllables that you broke down don't fit into English or most of the so called indo-european languages. The only way that a European/American would come up with this pronounciation is if they had some experience with other Indian names. BTW, it's incredibly stupid to take offense that someone from another country cannot pronounce your name the same way that you can (notice how I didn't call you stupid, I implied that the action itself
Umm, that describes a normal arrest. If you get arrested and are not forcibly detained, then you're not actually under arrest, right? Therefore this is hyperbole so that it sounds worse than it is. He was simply arrested and from his account, treated pretty well. He wasn't beaten or drugged or tortured, so therefore it's a normal arrest. He was under arrest for what, 8 hours? Most places in the world (and yes, even "civilized countries), it takes longer than that just to get to talk to someone that can get you bailed out etc.
"He was put in handcuffs and carried off by armed men."
Once again, hyperbole. Most police officers in most countries in the world are armed, this makes 100% sense to most people. Also, most countries, the police handcuff people that they arrest. This is nothing new.
"We ought to just be grateful the police aren't "debilitating" us."
Err, he was pointing out that he wasn't hurt or tortured. It's not a sorry state of anything, he was just making a point that there won't be any true permanent affects from it. Sure, he has a police record now, but so do a lot of hippies from the 60s (of course, that's a badge of courage to them).
"You are a complete moron. Please die."
And this completely makes you and your opinions and thoughts irrelevant, childish and worthless. Anyone that believes that someone is stupid or should die because they disagree is not a normal human being that has any rights to the freedoms that they enjoy or want to enjoy.
While I agree that this whole incident was worse than it could have been, it also wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out. This is not an Orwellian episode, it also doesn't make England a police state. Time to settle down and look for something constructive to do, like write your appropriate governmental representatives non-threatening, informative letters with your opinions in it or organize a peaceful rally or something else that actually matters.
The officers themselves are typically protected against civil cases. People can sue the police department, city, state, whatever and often win those cases if it has any merit. Police officers are however open to lawsuits when their actions are say racially/sexually motivated etc. So basically, if they are doing their jobs as they are trained and instructed to do, they can't be sued for money. But if they step over the rules and their training, it's fair game.
If anyone doesn't believe this is the case, you don't follow local US news at all (most cases don't make national headlines, but every city I've lived in has had these types of lawsuits. Some fail, some succeed. Some should fail and some definitely should succeed in my opinion, but what do I know).
You probably should have looked up the term online before posting such a mean-spirited comment.
Analphabetic is a word and it has many meanings:
noun 1. an illiterate person who does not know the alphabet
adjective 1. not alphabetic; "an analphabetic arrangement of letters"; "Jesperson's system of phonetic transcription is analphabetic" 2. unlettered having little acquaintance with writing; "special tutorials to assist the unlettered sector of society" 3. relating to or expressed by a writing system that is not alphabetic
As a side note, this term is usually used when trying to communicate without any type of alphabet, such as when 2 people don't speak the same language and try to communicate using pictures etc.
No, commercial telephone calls fall under the First Amendment. Commercial speech is subject to some regulation, but only some. You can't silence it completely. Political calls, religious calls, etc. don't even fall within that, and must be highly free from regulation.
Actually, commercial telephone calls currently enjoy limited protection under the First Amendment because lawmakers and the judiciary have decided to interpret it as thus. The First Amendment was not aimed at giving private commerce the freedom to harass, unduly influence or attempt to deceive consumers. There are many, many good books written by and about the Framers in which they discuss what the First Amendment was intended to do and specifically what it was not supposed to do (i.e. protection of anonymous sources was to be very limited, they wanted to make sure that THEY would have been protected, but not necessarily that a common criminal would be etc).
Anyways, what I was getting at, the actual wording and original intention of the First Amendment was not something like this (and before a fanboy says "how do you know what they wanted or meant?", I know because I have read their opinions and ideas on this topic. Just go to your library, the majority of the Framers wrote books on the subject and the few that didn't have their opinions recorded by a contemporary. I don't include specific references simply because there are so many and they are so easy to find at a library). In fact the reason that it was included in an amendment after the constitution was because they were afraid that if it was in the actual document that the later legislature and judiciary would be afraid to interpret it and just take it word for word (OK, there was also the minor reason that they worried that the constitution might not be ratified by the colonies if the Bills were included in the main body, but that was a secondary reason according to Jefferson and others).
My point is that at any time a bold legislature or judiciary body can and probably will attempt to go back to the "basics" and get rid of these fuzzy loopholes that serve companies more than they serve the individual (Jefferson was very concerned that the document put the rights of the individual people be put before the rights of everything else. Very interesting considering the entire slavery issue, but that's another topic).
I happen to disagree. I think that the limitations exactly and the whole thing was a marketing ploy.
Think of the 3 things they were originally selling the OS on: 1. Name, similar to Windows (Lindows). 2. Complete compatibility with Windows applications. 3. Low price for a complete OS.
Look at each one critically, 1. I'm pretty sure even my dog knew they wouldn't be able to keep a name like that. Anyone that thought the courts wouldn't smack their hands was either not smart enough to remember to breathe or had been in a coma for the last 50 years. 2. Anyone that had ever looked into Wine/WineX knew that this was out of reach. Even a completely clueless Corp Exec would realize this (I say this because one of the clueless Corp Execs at one of my old jobs had this conversation with me. And believe me, he was about as clueless as they came. He wouldn't even get a car alarm because he thought that if someone attempted to break into his car it would never run again). 3. Well, they could do this one. From what I've heard, it seems like they might have succeeded. At least to some degree.
From the first time I saw their website, I knew it was a gimmick to get people interested in their new OS and they never planned on being able to deliver everything. That was pretty much the same reaction from everyone in the industry I talked to about it.
I'm glad that they're working on this, and wish them every luck in the future. But I'll wait until all the new functionality makes it back into Cedega. That way I can still have a nice secure system and gaming (of course my current gaming box, WinXP, isn't secure, but at least it runs every game I put on it).
Most gamers do NOT only play on consoles! The PC game market is more alive and well than at any other time in the history of gaming.
I had a large post written up with so many reasons why you are wrong, and then I realized, if you are clueless enough to make such an idiotic blanket statement you would never be able to grasp any explanation of why you are wrong.
While the next gen of gaming consoles are looking incredible, they will still never be able to take away any real significant share from many of the portions of the gaming market from PCs. While they have their niche, they still can't touch a PC in the FPS and RTS genre, which of course is where the money is at. Sure, there are a lot of kids playing those types of games on their PS2 or Xbox, but that really is because their parents won't buy them a modern computer.
If you seriously still think that PC games are passe, find a computer shop that has a modern game running on a modern PC and give it a shot. Then go over to the PS2 or Xbox demo machine and compare the 2. If you're being at least semi-impartial you'll immediately see what PC games have to offer.
P.S. I hope that Linspire and Transgaming can get this together, then maybe it will flow back to Cedega for Linux. It would be nice to be able play real games on Linux without losing half the performance of my machine or spending 10 hours per game to get it setup and 10-20 mins each session getting it to run again.
Holding Blizzard's use of Bittorent up as a good move for the protocol is not very wise. Their patch system is absolutely awful. Everyone that I know of gets their WoW patches the same way. We wait until some kind soul with a premium account on Gamespy downlaods the new patch and then gives us a direct link to their personal server/website. Blizzard's client is buggy, extremely tempermental and incredibly slow. It doesn't play well with most modern broadband routers or firewalls, even after you open the ports up. It used to be the biggest complaint that anyone had about the game, until everyone stopped using the stupid thing.
Blizzard has promised to fix the client, but then again, they've been saying that since the beta days.
The key difference is that in Episode 4, if you didn't understand the scroll, the action immediately reinforces and expands the background in the text.
Umm, no, the action didn't reinforce it. In fact all you saw was some people shooting at each other. If you had the volume off, you wouldn't have even "known" that Darth Vader and the Stormtroopers were the bad guys. It's not until the dialogue much later in the movie that you start to pick this up, in fact the movie represents Darth Vader as nothing but an evil priest until much later in the movie (I know this, because I have the occasion to watch Ep 4 with some people recently that had never seen it and that was their understanding having missed the crawl, don't ask). This of course is the same thing as Ep 3, except that during the initial action sequence you actually pick up much more of the plotline as they talk about the events unfolding around them.
Episode 3 (and 1-3 generally) doesn't make clear to the audience the key plot points, and it's not great filmmaking if the only key to understanding the action is a brief, scrolling text prologue.
What makes a great film is the same thing that makes a great play. If you had ever read any of Shakespeare's plays, you would know that most of them start off with a narrator laying out a plotline prior to the start of the play. The acts that immediately follow rarely reveal any of the plotline, that happens later after the attention of the audience is captured. While I'm not comparing Ep 3 to say Hamlet, it's clear that Lucas used a classical approach to the movie.
If adults can't understand why the characters are doing whatever they're doing onscreen, how are kids (and these are kids movies for the most part) supposed to figure it out?
It's funny, I haven't met a single adult or child (above the age of 8 or so) that didn't understand 90% of the movie. And yes, I have talked with a lot of people that have seen the movie. I would say that the author of the article hasn't spoken with very many people or he just lives/works in an area with a lot of people that are really subpar in the intelligence/comprehension category. I thought that whole line of reasoning was extremely flawed either with his sample size or over-villifying his co-workers.
The Phantom Menace referred to the Sith, but at the beginning of the movie they had no idea it was the Sith. They saw the Menace that was in front of their faces, namely the Trade Federation. What they didn't realize was that there was a more serious threat out there and that it was in fact behind the known threat.
And anyone with any fair sense of musical esthetics can tell that the older stuff is generally better, even if they think of it as "less bad".
You actually mean "And anyone that likes the same kind of music that I like can tell that the older stuff is generally better, even if they think of it as "less bad"."
Disguising personal tastes as "esthetics" is inane and very self-serving. People usually form their "likes" and "dislikes" when they are younger and tend to go back to those tastes as they get older. This is a natural process and there is nothing wrong with it, but don't try and pass those tastes off as being cultured or "musically esthetic".
I personally really enjoy the music that I listened to when I was a teenager and newer music that sounds like that. However, I'm not enough of a egoistic to try and claim that new wave music from the 80s is better than the current music because it's more "musically esthetic".
FYI, people that use words like esthetic and flaunt their musical "knowledge" ARE snobs and they ALWAYS have higher opinions of themselves than everyone else does about them.
Why would adding Ads to RSS feeds encourage people to use RSS feeds? Are these the same people that only watch television for the commercials? The people that only buy magazines to look at the slick Ads? The people that leave the theatre after the previews?
Or do you mean that this will entice more websites to include RSS feeds? Most half-way decent websites that I use already have RSS feeds, but perhaps we have differing browsing needs.
I personally will not use any RSS feeds that have Ads in them, this is ridiculous.
You can actually turn off the behavior that puts multiple things on the taskbar. It's in Tools/View/Show/Windows in Taskbar......But of course this does not create tabs. In fact all it does is make it so that you have to click on the Window>document 2.
I'm definitely not defending MS here, personally I love tabs in Firefox, IM clients etc and would love to see them in the Office products (have to use them for work). But they did actually put this particular feature in because users requested it. Typical MS took the user request and turned it into an annoying, only slightly better feature instead of innovating a better way of doing things.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because this always worked so well for the coyote.
By the by, I'd also like to mention that some 60% of the English speaking world speaks the American English dialect compared to only about 15-20% that use the Commonwealth English dialect.
By this, I meant native speakers of course. I wasn't able to find a reliable source for non-native speakers, which I would imagine is a bit more even due to British colonization, pidgins, creoles etc.
Why do people in the US persist in spelling the word "neighbour" as neighbor?
Why not go the whole hog and write: nabur or naybur?
Because if we spelled it with a U, we would have failed our 5th grade spelling tests.
Seriously, you do realize that in the US we speak a dialect of English called "American English"? And that what you apparently speak is a dialect called "Commonwealth English"? Since they are different dialects, the rules of written and verbal speech are considered independent of each other and not incorrect as they relate to the other dialect. Our dialect dropped the U from many words almost 200 years ago, in addition to many other spelling changes.
By the by, I'd also like to mention that some 60% of the English speaking world speaks the American English dialect compared to only about 15-20% that use the Commonwealth English dialect. So, I'd say that we rather outnumber you, too bad old chap.
P.S. Do you still spell music with a k? How about wagon, still using 2 G's? Those were the "proper" british spellings of those words back in the early 1800s when the US changed them up (due in large part to Webster's dictionary, perhaps you've heard of it?) Odd how you Brits changed the spellings of some of your words, but left others in that have nothing to do with pronounciation.
Umm, you completely ignored and put aside his point. Freedom of Speech was put into the 1st amendment for the sole purpose of allowing Lese Majeste (Lese Majeste means speaking against the king or in this case the government). Specifically, the states wanted this freedom so that if the current government became corrupted like the English monarchy/parliament, then they would not be thrown in jail for saying so. It was not intended to protect the press from printing whatever they pleased or protecting their sources or pornography or flag burning or any such thing. These were interpretations added in later. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have these freedoms, but that the original poster was correct and you completely side-stepped his arguement.
As to your point. Lumping pornography and games into the same category as writing about injustices is ridiculous. They are apples and oranges, please stop throwing out Larry Flynt's views on the world.
The examples are pretty self evident: legal drinking age, home schooling, forced religious observance at school, marriage before the age of consent (most states allow this with the parent's consent), the list goes on, but those are the ones that stick out since they have all been challenged at the legislative/judicial level.
First and foremost, the Bill of Rights is not part of the constitution itself, it is the first 10 amendments that were added after the constitution was created and ratified. Perhaps you understand this, but your phrasing reads as if you don't realize this. I mention this for a reason, every amendment that adds something that wasn't already there, adds to the constitution, not the Bill of Rights, which itself adds to the constitution. Now, if you are talking about the 17 amendments after the Bill of Rights, which I think you are, then only a few actually "add" anything, most are alterations of existing wording. So in this case, I think you are both wrong, the Bill of Rights added many things, but the remainder of the amendments mostly modified what was already there. And by the way, I think you missed his point, what I think he was getting at was that the Bill of Rights should not be considered the end-all-be-all of our rights, but more of a starting ground that we work things out from there. Which is exactly what it has been as so proven by your comments about pornography and video games, neither of which
Alright, I tried to resist commenting on this and couldn't.
First and foremost, the legal drinking age in the US isn't 21, 21 is the legal age for purchasing and posessing alcohol in public. The difference is that people under the age of 21 can still drink alcohol, they just can't buy it themselves and can't drink in public.
1. Can't really argue with you on that one.
2. Unintended consequences
1. Sorry, but drugs are the choice of date rapists (GHB and Rohypnol are the most common). It's a lot easier to slip one of these into a girl's soda or whatever she's drinking than to get her drunk enough that she can't fight a guy off.
2. Fake IDs? How does teenagers buying fake IDs make it easier for criminals to get fake IDs? That doesn't even make sense.
3. I assume that you're talking about the US here? Since the majority of Americans do not live within walking distance of a bar (I couldn't find a link to the statistic on that one, but I see it all the time from the MADD and SADD people) this arguement is invalid as it applies to underage and legal drinking.
4. Get in trouble for drinking? What does that have to do with drinking before the age of 21? That just reflects on the morals of your parents. How would changing the law change your parents opinions on you getting drunk? Are you suggesting that adults base their morals off the laws of the land? If so, you really need to get out more and talk with people older than you.
5. OK, back to the previous reason, how would changing the legal age affect a school that is "dry"? Those schools don't allow people over 21 to drink on-campus do they? They aren't a "dry" campus because of the legal age, those schools were "dry" before the law was changed in the 80s (the Federal "suggestions"/laws were put in the 80s, some states had switched over prior to that) or they are "dry" now because of religious beliefs. Yes, I know that wasn't the original assertion. As far as calling the police or going to a hospital, anyone that doesn't seek emergency help because they were drinking is an idiot or is guilty of a crime worse than underage drinking.
3. BS rationalizations? Actually the number of vehicular accidents involving intoxicated people under 21 dropped significantly in the US when the laws were put in. And they were the cause of the majority of DWI accidents and they also accounted for the majority of fatalities in these accidents. Sorry, that's not a rationalization, that's cold hard fact. (I'll let somebody else add a link for the stats, I'm too lazy to look it up. But the differences were drastic before and after the laws)
4. Double standard? You obviously have not bothered looking up the punishments for the crimes. DWI/DUI have much more severe penalties than underage posession. In your example, the teenager would probably not be counted as DWI/DUI unless they had a very slow metabolism and didn't weigh much since they would be well under the legal limit. When I looked up the punishments for first offense underage drinking, it was typically a misdemeanor with a fine, possibly short term suspension of a license and possibly some community service. DWI/DUI in most states involves mandatory jail time, a hefty fine, mandatory license suspension/revoke, some community service and mandatory rehab. Also, most states offer the teenager an alcohol awareness class that allows them to slip out of the penalties and usually wipes the crime off of their record.
I'm afraid that your arguements are for the most part incredibly silly with a few good points brought in. Do I think that the law should be changed to 18? Maybe. Do I think that if it was changed that the alcohol related accidents would increase? Most definitely, probably double or triple. Do I think that the government has the right to pass laws that protect the general populace? Yes. Do I think that the current law has a detrimental effect on teenagers? Definitely not, what
And here I thought that an article that has something to with music might actually go without an inane and irrelevant comment from Indie Fanboy. What would a music-related topic be without a stupid comment about how Indie music is "better" than Non-Indie music?
You sir, have restored my faith in Slashdot silliness. Although, next time if you could also include something about how your worthless Mac couldn't be affected, the rest of us would really appreciate it. Thanks.
after I read this little nugget: most of my gaming is sadly done on a Mac.
Anyone that does their primary gaming on a Mac is not conversant with either current games or equipment. I'm not particularly interested in the opinions on a gaming laptop from someone that doesn't have a modern machine or play modern games.
"Except that's not what happened with the PS2. The PS2 had a largish initial supply that sold out in pre-orders, then a steady trickle of consoles about the size (if not larger) than what Microsoft is planning. The K-B Toys in my local mall, for example, had over 60 they sold as pre-orders, and then had about 10 a day from then on. Those additional 10 all sold out within an hour of when UPS arrived every day. There was no period where there were no units for a month."
Actually you're wrong about all of this. Sony received an initial shipment in from overseas where the units were manufactured, that was enough to cover all of their alloted pre-orders (meaning that each store said I will sell xxx pre-orders, and if the store didn't actually sell that amount of pre-orders, then Sony put those units into a seperate pile if you will), and also a certain number of extras to be sold as regular retail (the number each store was given of these extras was dependent on the size of the store, size of the market city, amount of PS1 console and game sales, plus number of committed pre-sales for the PS2). This shipment sold out within 1-4 days depending on the city, meaning that in some parts of the country it didn't sell as fast as others.
What happened afterwards is the interesting part. Sony then distributed all of those "slush" units that they had extra from the alloted, but unsold pre-orders. These went to the bigger markets where demand was high. Next, the stores themselves started to sell the pre-ordered units that had not been picked up yet. Meaning that K-B, ToysRUs, Best Buy etc took all of the pre-orders that were not paid in full (i.e. the customer only put down the minimum deposit required when they pre-ordered instead of paying for it all up front) and that weren't picked up in the first 2-3 days after product launch and either put them on the shelf or re-distributed them to other stores in bigger markets (Best Buy refunded my $50 since I was called out of town unexpectedly and couldn't get to the store within 3 days of the release). This is the real explanation of why you saw some units trickling into your local K-B, regardless of what the teenager working behind the counter told you the reason was.
Lastly, Sony did not receive a single shipment of PS2s for 4-6 weeks after the initial shipment, you can check with Sony on this (there were also tons of newspaper articles about this situation at the time, perhaps you read a local paper instead of a national paper?). This was caused by a lot of things coming together all at the same time. If I remember correctly there were: factory labor strikes, dock strikes, a minor coup in one of the countries, a ship that "went missing" in a storm and they also blamed some of it on exaggerated production capacities of a factory or 2.
"This is sorta the opposite case of Apple's move to x86- having only one major producer of PowerPC chips made Apple dependent upon IBM's capacity to produce the chips in the quantities they need at a good price."
This reason is of course complete and utter BS. IBM was always ahead of production of Apple and didn't gouge Apple on the procs. Motorola was the company that had supply issues with the previous generation of PPC chips.
Also your analogy has a major flaw in it. Moving to Intel hasn't changed the fact that they are still dealing with a single vendor for their processor. As far as price, you obviously haven't priced a Mac before, Apple has never had qualms about passing on additional costs to the customer. The switch to x86 processors will not bring the price of Macs down, it will just sell more Macs as everyone has to have the latest model.
Apple would've been smarter to partner with AMD, but Apple has never been about doing things intelligently, to them, looking cool is more important than any other consideration.
"But its an industry wide practice and not dishonest."
You apparently don't know what the word dishonest means, I recommend picking up a dictionary.
If Microsoft says, "We are sold out of Xbox 360s" then they are stating that they do not have any more units to sell to customers. Since the article states they will have more units to sell, then this is by definition a lie. The terms "lie" and "dishonesty" do actually mean the same thing in the business sense as they mean to the rest of the world, putting all rumors to the contrary aside.
Of course this is a perfect example of why the term "Business Ethics" is even more of a joke than "Military Intelligence". Your professors literally tried to teach you that it's OK to lie to customers and that it's not really a lie because everyone does it. Just because something is not specifically illegal, doesn't make it fair or ethical.
While the Germans did use the throat microphone in the PxKw III which they stopped using '42, I can't find any reference that mentions any later tanks using this system. I can't find anything indicates if they used them throughout the entire line or if it was limited to just a few models of this tank.
As an interesting note, the Germans didn't start testing their throat microphones until '37, a year after they were invented, in America. I'm not implying that they stole the design, it's very possible that they developed the idea in parrallel. They were originally tested on aircraft by the Germans, but only used in tanks. Whereas the Allies used them in bombers from '42 on.
As a linguist (meaning someone that speaks or studies multiple languages. I speak 4 very different languages, read another 3 and I have studied at various times over a dozen others), I couldn't help but laugh at your comments. Your comments are not only intentionally insulting, but incredibly misinformed. They obviously come from quite a bit of inexperience and a lot of anger towards native-english speakers.
"it always cracks me when people (usually stupid Americans) bitch about the Indian people's names being hard to pronounce"
Most of the time that people "bitch" about anyone's name being hard to pronounce comes from 2 reasons: first, the sounds are foreign and don't mesh into the languages that the person speaks, being mad at someone for this is asinine; second, the owner of the name says their name too fast for the other person to catch it all. When you introduce yourself, try saying your name intentionally slower than you think you need to, all of the sudden you will stop hearing people making small jokes about your name or creating nicknames for you. My last name is a very uncommon Irish surname and if I say it quickly, everyone mishears it as the name of a country (and yes, this includes every single Indian that I introduce myself to, and btw, I know a lot of Indian people).
"every language but English is phonetic"
This is not only untrue, but the reality is just the opposite. Most languages are not written phonetically and the very few that are usually transliterated from another alphabet or a written language did not exist previously. This is of course the case here with the name in question, it is Hindi transliterated to English, so of course it's spelled phonetically, however as many people pointed out you still have to know where to syllables are. Also, as somebody else pointed out, English is pretty phonetical with some exceptions.
"No other language has stupid rules where Y is 'sometimes' a vowel - where C is sometimes K - where "tongue" is pronounced "tung""
Wrong again. Almost every language has stupid rules like this. If you were to objectively look back at Hindi, I believe that there are a few stupid rules also (a good friend of mine mentioned a few to me once, but they escape me at the moment. As I never quite got to a conversational level in Hindustani, a dialect of Hindi spoken in Fiji by about a third of the people there, I wouldn't be able to point things like that out myself). This point again shows that you have a very limited understanding of other languages and linguistics itself.
"You're probably just too stupid to try rather than too stupid to actually pronounce it."
First and foremost, speaking multiple languages has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Many of the smartest people in the world only speak one language (and no, I'm not including only English speakers in this statement). And there are many people that are barely smart enough to exist above a handicapped state that speak more than 1 language. Also, not attempting to pronounce a word/name has nothing to do with intelligence. It can have something to do with fear or as is the case most often, embarrasment or simply not wanting to insult someone by mispronouncing their name. Just as an aside, pointing out someone else's lack of intelligence usually is an attempt to hide one's own lack of intelligence, this is a well understood and documented physicological effect.
"but, in general, if you just say it one syllable at a time 2 or 3 times, the emphasis will present itself for you."
Actually, this is not the case here. Since the syllables that you broke down don't fit into English or most of the so called indo-european languages. The only way that a European/American would come up with this pronounciation is if they had some experience with other Indian names. BTW, it's incredibly stupid to take offense that someone from another country cannot pronounce your name the same way that you can (notice how I didn't call you stupid, I implied that the action itself
"Being forcibly detained"
Umm, that describes a normal arrest. If you get arrested and are not forcibly detained, then you're not actually under arrest, right? Therefore this is hyperbole so that it sounds worse than it is. He was simply arrested and from his account, treated pretty well. He wasn't beaten or drugged or tortured, so therefore it's a normal arrest. He was under arrest for what, 8 hours? Most places in the world (and yes, even "civilized countries), it takes longer than that just to get to talk to someone that can get you bailed out etc.
"He was put in handcuffs and carried off by armed men."
Once again, hyperbole. Most police officers in most countries in the world are armed, this makes 100% sense to most people. Also, most countries, the police handcuff people that they arrest. This is nothing new.
"We ought to just be grateful the police aren't "debilitating" us."
Err, he was pointing out that he wasn't hurt or tortured. It's not a sorry state of anything, he was just making a point that there won't be any true permanent affects from it. Sure, he has a police record now, but so do a lot of hippies from the 60s (of course, that's a badge of courage to them).
"You are a complete moron. Please die."
And this completely makes you and your opinions and thoughts irrelevant, childish and worthless. Anyone that believes that someone is stupid or should die because they disagree is not a normal human being that has any rights to the freedoms that they enjoy or want to enjoy.
While I agree that this whole incident was worse than it could have been, it also wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out. This is not an Orwellian episode, it also doesn't make England a police state. Time to settle down and look for something constructive to do, like write your appropriate governmental representatives non-threatening, informative letters with your opinions in it or organize a peaceful rally or something else that actually matters.
The officers themselves are typically protected against civil cases. People can sue the police department, city, state, whatever and often win those cases if it has any merit. Police officers are however open to lawsuits when their actions are say racially/sexually motivated etc. So basically, if they are doing their jobs as they are trained and instructed to do, they can't be sued for money. But if they step over the rules and their training, it's fair game.
If anyone doesn't believe this is the case, you don't follow local US news at all (most cases don't make national headlines, but every city I've lived in has had these types of lawsuits. Some fail, some succeed. Some should fail and some definitely should succeed in my opinion, but what do I know).
You probably should have looked up the term online before posting such a mean-spirited comment.
Analphabetic is a word and it has many meanings:
noun
1. an illiterate person who does not know the alphabet
adjective
1. not alphabetic; "an analphabetic arrangement of letters"; "Jesperson's system of phonetic transcription is analphabetic"
2. unlettered having little acquaintance with writing; "special tutorials to assist the unlettered sector of society"
3. relating to or expressed by a writing system that is not alphabetic
As a side note, this term is usually used when trying to communicate without any type of alphabet, such as when 2 people don't speak the same language and try to communicate using pictures etc.
Actually, commercial telephone calls currently enjoy limited protection under the First Amendment because lawmakers and the judiciary have decided to interpret it as thus. The First Amendment was not aimed at giving private commerce the freedom to harass, unduly influence or attempt to deceive consumers. There are many, many good books written by and about the Framers in which they discuss what the First Amendment was intended to do and specifically what it was not supposed to do (i.e. protection of anonymous sources was to be very limited, they wanted to make sure that THEY would have been protected, but not necessarily that a common criminal would be etc).
Anyways, what I was getting at, the actual wording and original intention of the First Amendment was not something like this (and before a fanboy says "how do you know what they wanted or meant?", I know because I have read their opinions and ideas on this topic. Just go to your library, the majority of the Framers wrote books on the subject and the few that didn't have their opinions recorded by a contemporary. I don't include specific references simply because there are so many and they are so easy to find at a library). In fact the reason that it was included in an amendment after the constitution was because they were afraid that if it was in the actual document that the later legislature and judiciary would be afraid to interpret it and just take it word for word (OK, there was also the minor reason that they worried that the constitution might not be ratified by the colonies if the Bills were included in the main body, but that was a secondary reason according to Jefferson and others).
My point is that at any time a bold legislature or judiciary body can and probably will attempt to go back to the "basics" and get rid of these fuzzy loopholes that serve companies more than they serve the individual (Jefferson was very concerned that the document put the rights of the individual people be put before the rights of everything else. Very interesting considering the entire slavery issue, but that's another topic).
I happen to disagree. I think that the limitations exactly and the whole thing was a marketing ploy.
Think of the 3 things they were originally selling the OS on:
1. Name, similar to Windows (Lindows).
2. Complete compatibility with Windows applications.
3. Low price for a complete OS.
Look at each one critically,
1. I'm pretty sure even my dog knew they wouldn't be able to keep a name like that. Anyone that thought the courts wouldn't smack their hands was either not smart enough to remember to breathe or had been in a coma for the last 50 years.
2. Anyone that had ever looked into Wine/WineX knew that this was out of reach. Even a completely clueless Corp Exec would realize this (I say this because one of the clueless Corp Execs at one of my old jobs had this conversation with me. And believe me, he was about as clueless as they came. He wouldn't even get a car alarm because he thought that if someone attempted to break into his car it would never run again).
3. Well, they could do this one. From what I've heard, it seems like they might have succeeded. At least to some degree.
From the first time I saw their website, I knew it was a gimmick to get people interested in their new OS and they never planned on being able to deliver everything. That was pretty much the same reaction from everyone in the industry I talked to about it.
I'm glad that they're working on this, and wish them every luck in the future. But I'll wait until all the new functionality makes it back into Cedega. That way I can still have a nice secure system and gaming (of course my current gaming box, WinXP, isn't secure, but at least it runs every game I put on it).
Who modded this guy insightful?
Most gamers do NOT only play on consoles! The PC game market is more alive and well than at any other time in the history of gaming.
I had a large post written up with so many reasons why you are wrong, and then I realized, if you are clueless enough to make such an idiotic blanket statement you would never be able to grasp any explanation of why you are wrong.
While the next gen of gaming consoles are looking incredible, they will still never be able to take away any real significant share from many of the portions of the gaming market from PCs. While they have their niche, they still can't touch a PC in the FPS and RTS genre, which of course is where the money is at. Sure, there are a lot of kids playing those types of games on their PS2 or Xbox, but that really is because their parents won't buy them a modern computer.
If you seriously still think that PC games are passe, find a computer shop that has a modern game running on a modern PC and give it a shot. Then go over to the PS2 or Xbox demo machine and compare the 2. If you're being at least semi-impartial you'll immediately see what PC games have to offer.
P.S. I hope that Linspire and Transgaming can get this together, then maybe it will flow back to Cedega for Linux. It would be nice to be able play real games on Linux without losing half the performance of my machine or spending 10 hours per game to get it setup and 10-20 mins each session getting it to run again.
Holding Blizzard's use of Bittorent up as a good move for the protocol is not very wise. Their patch system is absolutely awful. Everyone that I know of gets their WoW patches the same way. We wait until some kind soul with a premium account on Gamespy downlaods the new patch and then gives us a direct link to their personal server/website. Blizzard's client is buggy, extremely tempermental and incredibly slow. It doesn't play well with most modern broadband routers or firewalls, even after you open the ports up. It used to be the biggest complaint that anyone had about the game, until everyone stopped using the stupid thing.
Blizzard has promised to fix the client, but then again, they've been saying that since the beta days.
The key difference is that in Episode 4, if you didn't understand the scroll, the action immediately reinforces and expands the background in the text.
Umm, no, the action didn't reinforce it. In fact all you saw was some people shooting at each other. If you had the volume off, you wouldn't have even "known" that Darth Vader and the Stormtroopers were the bad guys. It's not until the dialogue much later in the movie that you start to pick this up, in fact the movie represents Darth Vader as nothing but an evil priest until much later in the movie (I know this, because I have the occasion to watch Ep 4 with some people recently that had never seen it and that was their understanding having missed the crawl, don't ask). This of course is the same thing as Ep 3, except that during the initial action sequence you actually pick up much more of the plotline as they talk about the events unfolding around them.
Episode 3 (and 1-3 generally) doesn't make clear to the audience the key plot points, and it's not great filmmaking if the only key to understanding the action is a brief, scrolling text prologue.
What makes a great film is the same thing that makes a great play. If you had ever read any of Shakespeare's plays, you would know that most of them start off with a narrator laying out a plotline prior to the start of the play. The acts that immediately follow rarely reveal any of the plotline, that happens later after the attention of the audience is captured. While I'm not comparing Ep 3 to say Hamlet, it's clear that Lucas used a classical approach to the movie.
If adults can't understand why the characters are doing whatever they're doing onscreen, how are kids (and these are kids movies for the most part) supposed to figure it out?
It's funny, I haven't met a single adult or child (above the age of 8 or so) that didn't understand 90% of the movie. And yes, I have talked with a lot of people that have seen the movie. I would say that the author of the article hasn't spoken with very many people or he just lives/works in an area with a lot of people that are really subpar in the intelligence/comprehension category. I thought that whole line of reasoning was extremely flawed either with his sample size or over-villifying his co-workers.
The Phantom Menace referred to the Sith, but at the beginning of the movie they had no idea it was the Sith. They saw the Menace that was in front of their faces, namely the Trade Federation. What they didn't realize was that there was a more serious threat out there and that it was in fact behind the known threat.
And anyone with any fair sense of musical esthetics can tell that the older stuff is generally better, even if they think of it as "less bad".
You actually mean "And anyone that likes the same kind of music that I like can tell that the older stuff is generally better, even if they think of it as "less bad"."
Disguising personal tastes as "esthetics" is inane and very self-serving. People usually form their "likes" and "dislikes" when they are younger and tend to go back to those tastes as they get older. This is a natural process and there is nothing wrong with it, but don't try and pass those tastes off as being cultured or "musically esthetic".
I personally really enjoy the music that I listened to when I was a teenager and newer music that sounds like that. However, I'm not enough of a egoistic to try and claim that new wave music from the 80s is better than the current music because it's more "musically esthetic".
FYI, people that use words like esthetic and flaunt their musical "knowledge" ARE snobs and they ALWAYS have higher opinions of themselves than everyone else does about them.
Sheesh, I never have mod points when I need them.
Why would adding Ads to RSS feeds encourage people to use RSS feeds? Are these the same people that only watch television for the commercials? The people that only buy magazines to look at the slick Ads? The people that leave the theatre after the previews?
Or do you mean that this will entice more websites to include RSS feeds? Most half-way decent websites that I use already have RSS feeds, but perhaps we have differing browsing needs.
I personally will not use any RSS feeds that have Ads in them, this is ridiculous.
You can actually turn off the behavior that puts multiple things on the taskbar. It's in Tools/View/Show/Windows in Taskbar......But of course this does not create tabs. In fact all it does is make it so that you have to click on the Window>document 2.
I'm definitely not defending MS here, personally I love tabs in Firefox, IM clients etc and would love to see them in the Office products (have to use them for work). But they did actually put this particular feature in because users requested it. Typical MS took the user request and turned it into an annoying, only slightly better feature instead of innovating a better way of doing things.
What Dvorak doesn't understand is that no one is issuing membership cards to a "Linux Community." And there is no tollgate on Linux Island
There's no tollgate? Then what the heck did I pay that guy for?
*carefully shreds up his Linux Community membership card