Any candidate who wants radical change in the system in any direction is closer to my views than any democrat or republican, who simply want to preserve the status quo.
Looking at the way the country has been run, it's more like this: Democrat nutjob, GOP nutjob, Tea Party candidate, OWS candidate. The ONLY truly nutty position is that the major parties can get us out of the mess they created.
And yet, the streets are full of protesters. If anything, people today have less hope than they did in 2008. Nothing changed, and he's going to have to run on that record.
At this point it's abundantly clear that if you vote for either major party, you are throwing your vote away. Vote third party or stay home.
Or are you under the false assumption sales-tax are meant as a tax on consumers?
Unless you're willing to exempt individuals from sales taxes, and only tax companies, corporations, etc, then it is a tax on consumers. A highly regressive tax on consumers.
Whatever he does, make sure there are plenty of girls around. A kid like this needs to have some experience being around them, before hormones hit and he realizes he has no idea how to talk to them.
In fact, our assertion is exactly what you just said.
Yes, so I'm rather surprised that it got modded down so much. It's quite obvious that restricting some activities leads to more freedom. I struggle to imagine how my statement was taken as a troll, is there anyone out there who would argue that I was incorrect?
I think freedom is maximized by restricting people from distributing binaries without source. You think freedom is maximized by restricting people from having source to their programs. In both cases freedoms are restricted to maximize freedom from a particular point of view.
It's interesting that persons promoting freedom want to restrict what other people do.
Because we'd clearly be most free, when there are absolutely no restrictions on what people do. For example, if you stop me from assaulting you, then I'm clearly not free at all am I?
In MacGyver, at least the lead character was likable. I watched about half a dozen episodes of Burn Notice when when visiting family for the holidays. Not once did I see anything likable, or have any reason to root for the main characters. I've got no problem with fluff, but the characters should at least be recognizible as human. I've seen porn with more realistic characterization and plot, and I didn't feel as dirty after watching it.
Read about GOMS and the Archy system (you can download and try it) to see how a command line can be made user-friendly.
The command line is already user friendly. Any command you want, all you have to do is invoke it. There's no searching through menus or squinting at icons, wondering what they do. Anytime you need more information, it's a 'man' or a '-h' away.
The command line is very friendly to this user. Much more friendly than any GUI I've ever seen. Every time I sit down at an OS X machine, the first thing I do is open up a terminal. It's much easier to use than the GUI.
How about programming to what they have in common instead?
You mean like our strength with languages? If there's one thing that humans have in common, it's our ability to use language. But everyone freaks out when I say that a language based interface (that is what commands are) is superior to a point and grunt interface. Why is that?
People for whom time is worth nothing find piracy valuable.
Because of the extreme income disparity, that describes most of the people in this country. If you want to stop piracy, we need to fix our economic system so people have more money than time.
That said, there are exceptions, and I'd call Burn Notice the best show on TV, which happens to be on USA Network.
Why do people like this show? I can't find anything good to say about it. "When you're a spy, you don't get fired, you get sent to Miami" WTF is this shit? The premise is absurd, the plots are absurd, the characters are absurd.
This is because deep down most people believe that entertainment is an optional extra. People make the rational decision when given the option of paying for it or not paying for it. They save their resources and pay for the necessities.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is how economics works. People make rational self interested decisions. If people are living hand to mouth, they're not going to fund serialized dramas. If you want quality entertainment, you have to fix the whole economic system.
That's a great example. Vi is supremely usable, once you know how to use it. Anyone can pick up notepad and edit some text, but no matter how long you spend with notepad you'll never be more capable than you were the first day. Vi's usability increases without limit the longer you use it, and the more different things you do with it.
Human computer interface is not one API, but 7 billion different individual APIs. You can't optimally support all of them at once. There are always trade offs that lead to judgement calls. That's not a science, that's art.
For instance, I'd say that the original Mac is a really really bad interface. Why? No command line. How do you script anything!
Then why do all the most widely hailed "usable" interfaces seem to be targeted at toddlers?
A good interface should be powerful, and well documented. If you start removing power to increase simplicity, then you are in fact treating your users with contempt.
Usability is a personal preference. Some people like a UI that doesn't make them think. I like a UI that encourages me to think, because thinking is empowering. If I don't think while using an interface, I'll never find out what that interface is capable of, and I'll never increase my capabilities.
Usability is an art, not a science. You can't make an app that everyone will find usable, anymore than you can make a work of art that everyone will find asthetically appealing.
Slashdot Mirror
Any candidate who wants radical change in the system in any direction is closer to my views than any democrat or republican, who simply want to preserve the status quo.
Even geniuses deserve to be happy. They're still human.
Looking at the way the country has been run, it's more like this: Democrat nutjob, GOP nutjob, Tea Party candidate, OWS candidate. The ONLY truly nutty position is that the major parties can get us out of the mess they created.
And yet, the streets are full of protesters. If anything, people today have less hope than they did in 2008. Nothing changed, and he's going to have to run on that record.
At this point it's abundantly clear that if you vote for either major party, you are throwing your vote away. Vote third party or stay home.
Or are you under the false assumption sales-tax are meant as a tax on consumers?
Unless you're willing to exempt individuals from sales taxes, and only tax companies, corporations, etc, then it is a tax on consumers. A highly regressive tax on consumers.
Whatever he does, make sure there are plenty of girls around. A kid like this needs to have some experience being around them, before hormones hit and he realizes he has no idea how to talk to them.
In fact, our assertion is exactly what you just said.
Yes, so I'm rather surprised that it got modded down so much. It's quite obvious that restricting some activities leads to more freedom. I struggle to imagine how my statement was taken as a troll, is there anyone out there who would argue that I was incorrect?
I think freedom is maximized by restricting people from distributing binaries without source. You think freedom is maximized by restricting people from having source to their programs. In both cases freedoms are restricted to maximize freedom from a particular point of view.
How is that controversial?
It's interesting that persons promoting freedom want to restrict what other people do.
Because we'd clearly be most free, when there are absolutely no restrictions on what people do. For example, if you stop me from assaulting you, then I'm clearly not free at all am I?
dd
Barnes & Noble's decision shows integrity from my point of view.
Yes, that's what they want you to think. Consider however whether B&N would refuse an exclusivity deal from DC.
Why is it that seeing things for what they really are ruins them?
In the future this will be looked back on as being as stupider than McCarthyism.
FTFY.
In MacGyver, at least the lead character was likable. I watched about half a dozen episodes of Burn Notice when when visiting family for the holidays. Not once did I see anything likable, or have any reason to root for the main characters. I've got no problem with fluff, but the characters should at least be recognizible as human. I've seen porn with more realistic characterization and plot, and I didn't feel as dirty after watching it.
Totally agree about House though.
The common thread in all these instances is you. What are you doing wrong?
Read about GOMS and the Archy system (you can download and try it) to see how a command line can be made user-friendly.
The command line is already user friendly. Any command you want, all you have to do is invoke it. There's no searching through menus or squinting at icons, wondering what they do. Anytime you need more information, it's a 'man' or a '-h' away.
The command line is very friendly to this user. Much more friendly than any GUI I've ever seen. Every time I sit down at an OS X machine, the first thing I do is open up a terminal. It's much easier to use than the GUI.
How about programming to what they have in common instead?
You mean like our strength with languages? If there's one thing that humans have in common, it's our ability to use language. But everyone freaks out when I say that a language based interface (that is what commands are) is superior to a point and grunt interface. Why is that?
People for whom time is worth nothing find piracy valuable.
Because of the extreme income disparity, that describes most of the people in this country. If you want to stop piracy, we need to fix our economic system so people have more money than time.
That said, there are exceptions, and I'd call Burn Notice the best show on TV, which happens to be on USA Network.
Why do people like this show? I can't find anything good to say about it. "When you're a spy, you don't get fired, you get sent to Miami" WTF is this shit? The premise is absurd, the plots are absurd, the characters are absurd.
This is because deep down most people believe that entertainment is an optional extra. People make the rational decision when given the option of paying for it or not paying for it. They save their resources and pay for the necessities.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is how economics works. People make rational self interested decisions.
If people are living hand to mouth, they're not going to fund serialized dramas. If you want quality entertainment, you have to fix the whole economic system.
That's a great example. Vi is supremely usable, once you know how to use it. Anyone can pick up notepad and edit some text, but no matter how long you spend with notepad you'll never be more capable than you were the first day. Vi's usability increases without limit the longer you use it, and the more different things you do with it.
Human computer interface is not one API, but 7 billion different individual APIs. You can't optimally support all of them at once. There are always trade offs that lead to judgement calls. That's not a science, that's art.
For instance, I'd say that the original Mac is a really really bad interface. Why? No command line. How do you script anything!
Different stroks for different folks.
Then why do all the most widely hailed "usable" interfaces seem to be targeted at toddlers?
A good interface should be powerful, and well documented. If you start removing power to increase simplicity, then you are in fact treating your users with contempt.
Usability is a personal preference. Some people like a UI that doesn't make them think. I like a UI that encourages me to think, because thinking is empowering. If I don't think while using an interface, I'll never find out what that interface is capable of, and I'll never increase my capabilities.
Usability is an art, not a science. You can't make an app that everyone will find usable, anymore than you can make a work of art that everyone will find asthetically appealing.
Photons, having no mass, have no rest energy by definition.
Photons are at rest in their frame of reference. They still have energy.
If you're making money, no one cares about security protocols.
What do you mean? I've run /. without javascript since 2 redesigns ago. It works better without javascript than with it.