Being able to click without raising windows disappeared years ago, and along with that any ability to actually use overlapping windows.
A lot of DE setups allow you to pin windows on top/beneath and still interact with other windows. Not quite sure what you're describing (or why you want it), though. Could you elaborate?
They have that strain of cancer cells (HeLa) that became biologically immortal, so it seems reasonable to predict that sooner or later we can make our bodies immortal (ignoring the chance of accidents etc.). And do our brains really need unlimited capacity, anyway? If you forget old stuff and can reclaim the neurons or whatever the storage medium is...
Or is the argument whether we ever actually forget anything completely?
I'd like to believe that I could be immortal. I want to be immortal. Now that I have kids, I want *them* to be immortal even more than I want to be immortal myself. But just because I want something to be possible, doesn't mean the universe has to make it possible
A lot of them only make sense if they assume you already have an iPhone, and in no way justify buying a new one for however many hundreds of dollars those run these days.
1. Not even sure what that wrist-mounted glowy app thing is about...some sort of sexified musical instrument? 2. A metronome, you can get for like 10 bucks at any music store. 3. I'm assuming the mic stand one is some sort of lyric display app? Just print the damn thing. 4. Using it as a video game controller? Fuck no. 5. Kids taking a video -- any smartphone these days can do that, I'm sure. Or even cheapo digital cameras. 6. Music display for marching band -- just use your freakin' sheet music! Totally unnecessary. I should know; I did band. Not to mention it's probably a hell of a lot easier to flip physical pages of music when you have 2 whole fast-time measures of rest than desperately hope that your swipe registers correctly on the first try. 7. And then there's the different bits where people are just pointing it at random stuff. Taking pictures? Big whoop.
Maybe if I already had an iPhone for some reason and these apps were all less than $5 each I'd think about it. But just the fact that these are all probably paid apps seems to undermine the entire point, as the conventional option would probably be barely more expensive. And if you have an iPhone, you don't give a fuck about money anyway, right?
We could also go with "Apple CEO Tim Cook, who during his keynote said that around 130 million customers have purchased their first Apple device in the last twelve months, states, 'Many of these customers were switchers from Android.'" I sometimes construct sentences like that that some people would call run-on, though.
The mere fact that a sentence is long does not make it a run-on sentence; sentences are run-ons only when they contain more than one independent clause.
Are all Apple public statements this arrogant? They're running those horrid (and long) commercials right now showing people using iDevices in all kinds of contrived circumstances, too.
Ah, okay. I forgot about dongles. Sounds like the best way to go about it--require the dongle (and maybe a password) at boot, then "auto" after that point doesn't really matter.
Electing someone on a campaign platform of doing X and then they don't do X is much more directly applicable, I suppose. Doing Y, which they neither said they would nor wouldn't do, isn't a breach of trust until it becomes a sufficiently large issue. If we elect them and don't like what we do, then we (in theory) vote them out. I'm starting to think that my initial reaction was a bit knee-jerk-y as I can't come up with a good reason other than my usual spiel about only having two choices and both of them sucking, so maybe I should just stop. I'm sure the exasperation is evident anyway.
(I would add that, in the case of Bush, it's pretty clear the voters did want him to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, considering they reelected him by a healthy margin subsequent to those events, so I'm not even sure your concrete example applies. He didn't "fuck things up," he gave people pretty much what they wanted, they just wanted really fucked up things.)
And it depends on who we define as "they"--voters, or corporate interests/organizations etc. who convinced voters/those already in power to think/act their way. But I'm falling into the "underestimating the stupidity of others" trap.
At least someone voted for Barack Obama; when he does wrong he can say with total accuracy, "this is the job you elected me to do," and the people must concede, setting aside all the demerits, "yep we did."
That's a total cop-out. By that logic, we elected Bush because we wanted him to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That we elected someone does not give them a free pass to fuck everything up and say it's our fault.
Then you lie. Are you under oath when they question you before they put you on the jury? If so, then you weasel your balls off.
If they're purposely going to do everything in their power to keep me from knowing about a concept that some SUPREME COURT JUSTICES have extolled the virtue of, why the fuck should I be honest with them?
Why is jury duty thought of by so many people as some godawful burden? Getting out of work for a week or two and actually contributing to democracy, heck yes I'd do it. At least with *me* on the jury, I know there's one person who brings a decent perspective and halfway open mind to the table.
Granted not everybody can afford to lose than income, but I'm betting you're not in that demographic.
Slashdot Mirror
Being able to click without raising windows disappeared years ago, and along with that any ability to actually use overlapping windows.
A lot of DE setups allow you to pin windows on top/beneath and still interact with other windows. Not quite sure what you're describing (or why you want it), though. Could you elaborate?
They have that strain of cancer cells (HeLa) that became biologically immortal, so it seems reasonable to predict that sooner or later we can make our bodies immortal (ignoring the chance of accidents etc.). And do our brains really need unlimited capacity, anyway? If you forget old stuff and can reclaim the neurons or whatever the storage medium is...
Or is the argument whether we ever actually forget anything completely?
I'd like to believe that I could be immortal. I want to be immortal. Now that I have kids, I want *them* to be immortal even more than I want to be immortal myself. But just because I want something to be possible, doesn't mean the universe has to make it possible
Biologically immortal species
Some of those involve a bit of fudging of the definition of "immortality," but hey.
I'm still unclear as to why you needed a program to replace the text with, presumably, the same exact text every 3 seconds...
Game worked perfectly, even line numbers, not so much,
I thought I understood your comment until the last line when suddenly
"What is truth?" -Pontius Pilate
(in all seriousness, I have no idea how they're doing comparatively)
Why should a consumer product company give a fuck about customer service
FTFY
Hold still while we install your eyePhone.
*rams phone into eye*
Fry: AAAIIEEEE!--ooh, this is pretty nice.
That you can't fix the whole world in one shot is not a reason to not try to fix anything.
This was the one I was thinking of.
A lot of them only make sense if they assume you already have an iPhone, and in no way justify buying a new one for however many hundreds of dollars those run these days.
1. Not even sure what that wrist-mounted glowy app thing is about...some sort of sexified musical instrument?
2. A metronome, you can get for like 10 bucks at any music store.
3. I'm assuming the mic stand one is some sort of lyric display app? Just print the damn thing.
4. Using it as a video game controller? Fuck no.
5. Kids taking a video -- any smartphone these days can do that, I'm sure. Or even cheapo digital cameras.
6. Music display for marching band -- just use your freakin' sheet music! Totally unnecessary. I should know; I did band. Not to mention it's probably a hell of a lot easier to flip physical pages of music when you have 2 whole fast-time measures of rest than desperately hope that your swipe registers correctly on the first try.
7. And then there's the different bits where people are just pointing it at random stuff. Taking pictures? Big whoop.
Maybe if I already had an iPhone for some reason and these apps were all less than $5 each I'd think about it. But just the fact that these are all probably paid apps seems to undermine the entire point, as the conventional option would probably be barely more expensive. And if you have an iPhone, you don't give a fuck about money anyway, right?
Oh. Okay, I missed that.
We could also go with "Apple CEO Tim Cook, who during his keynote said that around 130 million customers have purchased their first Apple device in the last twelve months, states, 'Many of these customers were switchers from Android.'" I sometimes construct sentences like that that some people would call run-on, though.
The mere fact that a sentence is long does not make it a run-on sentence; sentences are run-ons only when they contain more than one independent clause.
Are all Apple public statements this arrogant? They're running those horrid (and long) commercials right now showing people using iDevices in all kinds of contrived circumstances, too.
If the sentence was, "Apple CEO Tim Cook said during his keynote that...," would you still use commas? If not, why should we need them here?
Ah, okay. I forgot about dongles. Sounds like the best way to go about it--require the dongle (and maybe a password) at boot, then "auto" after that point doesn't really matter.
But i think most people have civilised themselves enough for that not to happen.
You call living under government oppression because rebellion would be too likely to get you killed "civilized"? Ouch.
Electing someone on a campaign platform of doing X and then they don't do X is much more directly applicable, I suppose. Doing Y, which they neither said they would nor wouldn't do, isn't a breach of trust until it becomes a sufficiently large issue. If we elect them and don't like what we do, then we (in theory) vote them out. I'm starting to think that my initial reaction was a bit knee-jerk-y as I can't come up with a good reason other than my usual spiel about only having two choices and both of them sucking, so maybe I should just stop. I'm sure the exasperation is evident anyway.
(I would add that, in the case of Bush, it's pretty clear the voters did want him to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, considering they reelected him by a healthy margin subsequent to those events, so I'm not even sure your concrete example applies. He didn't "fuck things up," he gave people pretty much what they wanted, they just wanted really fucked up things.)
And it depends on who we define as "they"--voters, or corporate interests/organizations etc. who convinced voters/those already in power to think/act their way. But I'm falling into the "underestimating the stupidity of others" trap.
Assuming honor on the part of someone who has demonstrated themselves to not be honorable is folly.
At least someone voted for Barack Obama; when he does wrong he can say with total accuracy, "this is the job you elected me to do," and the people must concede, setting aside all the demerits, "yep we did."
That's a total cop-out. By that logic, we elected Bush because we wanted him to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That we elected someone does not give them a free pass to fuck everything up and say it's our fault.
Because he's a citizen and last I heard, this was SUPPOSED to be a democracy! (republic, whatever)
Or they could have just lost the emails. Not like government bureaucracy ever does that.
That they may want to specifically keep records of everything does not mean that they are always successful.
Where's Hagbard Celine when you need him? Only, er, with winning the court case, too.
To even joke about it
Ha ha only serious
Then you lie. Are you under oath when they question you before they put you on the jury? If so, then you weasel your balls off.
If they're purposely going to do everything in their power to keep me from knowing about a concept that some SUPREME COURT JUSTICES have extolled the virtue of, why the fuck should I be honest with them?
Maybe should be posting AC but fuck it.
with the professional judges being involved in the deliberations to make sure that the lay judges act appropriately
What could possibly go wrong.
Unfortunately, any system that depends on people being objective, selfless, and honest is doomed to failure, so juries are iffy, too.
Why is jury duty thought of by so many people as some godawful burden? Getting out of work for a week or two and actually contributing to democracy, heck yes I'd do it. At least with *me* on the jury, I know there's one person who brings a decent perspective and halfway open mind to the table.
Granted not everybody can afford to lose than income, but I'm betting you're not in that demographic.