It's really amazing how an excellent UI is so valuable to quite a lot of people that they'll pay much higher prices, and blow off the overreaching fine print that infringes on our rights.
Excellent UI
Excellent hardware
Excellent (and easily used) software
It really does "just work" right out of the box
iPod ditto
iPad ditto
I'm not sure I'd agree with any of that. Sure it's pretty, but I dislike the UI of OS X and find it has quite a few fundamental flaws. My main OS is Windows 7 but I do use OS X quite regularly (almost daily - at least 4-5 days a week). I have used Linux, running both KDE and Gnome (although I haven't used Gnome in quite some time) and both seemed more intuitive than OS X. When talking about computers, the hardware is no more excellent than many PCs which cost significantly less. The only real difference there is the chassis, which are admittedly pretty, but not even close to worth the price of entry...and there are pretty PCs out there as well. I do NOT think they have excellent software, as a general rule anyway. Final Cut Pro is good, but for most other uses Macs rely on 3rd party software, be it Adobe for Photoshop, Microsoft for Office etc, which is no different or better on Windows. iTunes is pretty bad really (does the job, but it's not great), Safari is beaten by Chrome, Firefox and Opera (IMHO...but numbers wise at the very least Chrome beats it). It doesn't in my experience "just work" out of the box any better than Windows (certainly better than Linux though, but that's partly to do with the target demographic). As for the iPod and iPad (I assume iPhone is included in there somewhere) I find the UI acceptable, but far too simplistic (mainly due to the intentional lack of functionality) the hardware, especially on the iPhone, is poor by comparison to other smart phones and again most of the software is 3rd party.
However, he is the exact right person to nail down hardware and software guidelines. How do I know? I run Linux, Windows and OS X. OS X is - by *huge margins* - the best of the three to use day in, day out.
So what you're saying here is you prefer OS X, therefore Steve Jobs is the right person dictate hardware and software to the industry? As for "OS X is - by *huge margins* - the best of the three to use day in, day out.", I think what you actually mean is OS X is - by *huge margins* - the best of the three to use day in, day out FOR ME. It's only the best if you like it more and no-one can say definitively "This one is the best".
What do you mean? Isn't ADSL a subset of DSL? I'm fairly sure DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) is a description while ADSL (or Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) is an actual implementation/technology. There are many other forms of DSL as well: DSL technologies. As for being sat on top of the exchange, pretty much. I live maybe 2 miles away from mine, but I only get ~1mbps. Virgin certainly isn't available in my area, and even with ADSL 2+ when it becomes properly viable I'd only get ~4mbps, so no HD OnLive for me (heck, no SD Onlive at the moment:( ).
Really? Well that makes no sense at all. Guess this whole psuedo-flame-war was for nothing:P.
As for the weapon licensing thing, what kind of rifle is it? You certainly need a licence for guns, so maybe it's just that most licensed ones are hunting rifles or that it's easier to get a licence for one than other guns (hence my misconception).
You're not wrong there: it was indeed an EPIC fail. Why is that I always make stupid mistakes like that when in grammar nazi wars? Perhaps I just need to proof read a little more.
Well, I live in the countryside, so almost never have any interaction with the police. Even when in town, it's a fairly large town, but crime isn't all that much of a problem. As for the "Innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom and liberty", the first is certainly true over here when talking about court cases, but the second not so much. We have somewhat of a nanny state, which TBH isn't the best way of doing things but certainly seems to work. I myself a pretty liberal and very pro freedom and liberty, but I do NOT think all things should be a right - weaponry is one of them. I was a little extreme (for me anyway...not really all that extreme when you think about it) when talking about it earlier though. (I didn't really see it in terms of not being harassed by the police etc. Basically I didn't notice the inherent flaw in my argument, but hmar put me right on that one).
That sounds like it's in jest, but TBH it's kinda true. I didn't really think about it being misused by discriminating cops or whatever. It's not that I trust the police, but that I didn't really think about potential abuse. Now it has been brought up, I have changed my mind (see my reply to hmar)
That's certainly a fair point. I suppose what should really be illegal is the intent rather than the tool (although then you do sort of get into the realm of thought police...perhaps the attempt rather than intent...you get the idea). Now you put it that way, I certainly agree (just needed the right wording to see the point I guess). Knives I'm still not convinced on, be it pocket knives or not, but those would more often than not come under a legitimate use/reason anyway (in the same way a screwdriver would I guess) as long as it has more uses than simply a knife (unlike the buck knife someone else mentioned). You see people? All it takes is well reasoned argument and I changed my mind - stop getting so angry about everything and just be reasonable:).
but carrying a tool that can be used to do serious harm when there is no reason to do so should be illegal
Fuck you Mr. Nanny State. I think you made me throw up a little. By your logic, anyone trained in Martial Arts or previously in the military is now not allowed to walk around unescorted by police because of the fact that their very bodies are tools capable of doing "serious harm". Okay, so you don't want to count that one. That's fine. What about the toolbox I keep in my trunk? I work in an office, dealing with computers, why would I need tools in my trunk? ZOMG TERRORIST! Obviously the only reasonable answer is that I'm out to cause as much damage as possible everywhere I can. How do I even buy tools if I can't transport them at this point? Oh, ok, so it's okay if I have them in my car? In that case, why the hell do you people treat people who walk around like criminals? You know what? I like going for long walks at night. Typically I carry something to defend myself with because I realize that were I to be attacked, the law system would not be able to protect me, as they're too busy revenue generating on the state highways to actually be doing their job. Here's another one for you: Let's say you're a mechanic (auto, boat, plane, whatever, Hell, even just a machinist in a shop somewhere), who, for whatever reason, doesn't have a car. You own your own tools. You, for whatever reason, decide you want to take your own property home one night. Suddenly, this is impossible because you can't legally leave the property possessing your screwdriver/micrometer/torque wrench because of the fact that someone somewhere had the blessed insight to realize that possession of these items in public turns you into a savage and dangerous criminal who is beyond reason.
Sure it may seem a bit like a nanny state, but to be fair I am British, and that is how we treat a lot of things in general. Regardless, you and the others who have replied to me seem to have missed the point. A main point in that line you quoted was "when there is no reason to do so". Transporting something from a store is certainly a legitimate use. Having tools in your car in case you break down is a legitimate use as well, but why have one in your pocket while walking in the street other than to transport it? Heck, even self defence is sort of a legitimate use, although that one would be hard to prove. As for the car thing, the legitimate use is transportation. The difference between assault rifles and cars is that other than causing another human being harm, there is no use for a gun that cannot be better dome with a different tool.
As for the "if you take away anything manufactured that can be used as a weapon, people will just beat the shit out of each other with loose bricks and heavy fallen branches from trees" argument, yes they probably would, but what is the legitimate use of carrying a branch with you around the town?
I think something you have to bear in mind is I am British - over here, it is illegal to own guns other than hunting rifles and those require a licence. It is illegal to carry knives in the street unless you can prove some legitimate reason for doing so (there are many types if knives that are simply illegal and cannot be bought or owned anywhere legally). Heck, even replica swords are illegal to buy (by which I mean actual full size metal ones - plastic ones don't count for obvious reasons) which I think is maybe going a little far, but certainly understandable (as for carrying one in public, well that is certainly a no-no). Here in the UK, where guns are illegal (exceptions above), gun crime is significantly lower than in the US. Knife crime is also lower, since you can't carry one and any knife that is solely produced as weaponry is simply illegal. This is my background, so it may go some way to explaining my position, even if you don't agree. Heck, even I am on the fence - I don't think making carrying a screwdriver illegal without a legitimate purpose would be a particularly effective or easy law to enforce, but I do err on the side of caution.
First off, I didn't say anyone should be locked up. Illegal != should be locked up. Also, I didn't say possession should be illegal. I am essentially equating it with knives - you can't really slash with a screwdriver, but you can certainly stab, so, like knives, WHERE and WHY you can have them should be controlled. It should be noted that I am from the UK, where it is illegal to carry a knife - I don't know what the laws are like in other countries in that regard.
Ok, so then I guess just because I can make a fist and smack someone in the nose with it, I should be locked up all based on a "what if"? So to prevent that everyone should be forced to have their hands amputated or wrapped up in big pillows? What's next with using that line of thinking? Oh wait, I have teeth that could be used to bite someone, because if I'm not using them to either chew food or enunciate with, I shouldn't have them? Let's just have everyone get their teeth pulled and get dentures. That way we can take them out when we aren't using them because they *MIGHT* be used to commit a crime. Oh wait, what about the dentist that help us maintain our teeth? They should be locked up also because they are contributing to a possible felon. etc./etc./etc.
That is a ludicrous oversimplification. A part of your body cannot be controlled in such a way. You cannot say it is illegal to have hands or teeth in public without saying you either cannot have hands or teeth at all or cannot be in public at all. Also, to do a great deal of harm with them would require INTENT anyway.
You even go so far as to contradict yourself when you state "simply having a set on your person has no really legitimate reason to be illegal". So having lockpicks is ok, but being a mechanic (not that being a mechanic matters) with a screwdriver just walking down the street is reason to be stopped/detained?
There is no contradiction here. This is essentially a risk assessment. Lockpicks cannot really be used as a weapon unless you really want to stab a mouse or something. They are small precision tools that cannot be used to do any meaningful harm (note that stealing from someone is not doing them physical harm unless the thing stolen is medicine or something). At worst they are tools that can be used to gain access to a property illegally. You cannot kill someone with a lock pick (well, you probably could if you really tried, but no more easily than keys or a ring or glasses or whatever). That is the distinction I am making - weapons should not be allowed in public (or at all really), so unless you have a legitimate reason for having such a thing in public, of which there are many, it should be illegal. Note that that does not mean being sent to jail. Also, as I said, if there was a legitimate reason for having a screwdriver in public, then it certainly shouldn't be illegal.
You Alphathon, are a MAJOR FSCKING IDIOT! and your line of thinking is one of the reasons why this country is screwed up as badly as it is.
Personal insults rarely get you anywhere on the internet and make seem like somewhat of a troll. Also, I think you mean way of thinking, because I highly doubt the fact that I thought something at a particular point in time is destroying a country. BTW, I think it's likely that we are not from the same country, so it's moot anyway. Now if you'd said the world...
A screwdriver can cause far more harm than a boot. You cannot stab someone in the heart with a boot. Sure if you really try (part of that whole intent part) you can cause serious harm. There is another difference though - legitimate usage. As I said "walking the streets with a screwdriver" isn't a very useful description. If you have a reason to have a screwdriver on you (repairing a car, fitting a light etc, heck even transporting it from the shop where you bought it) then fine. I'm not even saying that people should be picked up for it necessarily unless there is reason to believe they intend to use it for harm. Belts have a legitimate use everywhere when worn - to hold up trousers. Fists can't exactly be banned anywhere. Boots protect your feet. Basically, screwdrivers IN PUBLIC should probably be controlled in the same way and for exactly the same reasons as knives are (they to have legitimate uses, such as foot preparation, but I don't see you complaining about not being allowed to CARRY carving knives).
Honestly that doesn't surprise me, and I'm not sure it's actually a bad thing. Not that they should prosecute or anything (should be given a warning and nothing more IMHO) but just as it is perfectly reasonable and understandable for a mechanic to a screwdriver it is still capable of serious damage to a person. Obviously I don't know the circumstances (was he really "walking the streets" or just on a pavement [sidewalk] working on a car at the time for example) but carrying a tool that can be used to do serious harm when there is no reason to do so should be illegal (at the very least it could do accidental damage). Carrying lockpicks is slightly different, as doing so cannot do accidental harm beyond what keys or something similar could do. Carrying them may strengthen a case against you in a breaking and entering/burglary case but simply having a set on your person has no really legitimate reason to be illegal. Now carrying either with the intent to use them to harm or break in or whatever SHOULD be illegal, but only if intent can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Why a screwdriver differs is that there needs not be any intent in order to do harm.
As already stated, no theft or stealing has taken place in that set of crimes, unless you count identity theft. Here is what they would (probably) be called:
Invasion of privacy
Identity theft with possible unauthorized access to a computer if that is where they are stored.
Tricky one, but presumably unless the person breaking and entering/entering unlawfully is carrying key-making equipment, they would have to steal the key to make a copy, so that would be theft. Whether the act of duplication is illegal or not I don't know (may come under identity theft or have a specific unauthorised duplication of keys law) but the act of using the duplicated key would certainly come under unlawful entry.
Unauthorized access to a computer, destruction of property
Unauthorized access to a computer, copyright infringement and/or corporate espionage
As for the breaking in, that would be breaking & entering and trespassing. Basically, just because you don't know the specific term for an offence does not give you free reign to lump it in with something else. Also, the copying of "the book you're writing for O'Reilly" WOULD be copyright infringement as long as you have written copyright info in it somewhere
You really are a Flash hater:). That guy you talk about certainly sounds like a moron, no doubt about it. I don't think that is a case that proves Flash is bad though, only that any tool in the wrong hands is evil. Take HTML tables for example - not evil in themselves but when an idiot designs a sites layout purely from tables they create something horrible. The same goes for things like animated.gifs *thinks back to the 90s when they were all the rage with (mostly) amateurs...bad times*. When you take everything you said together though; then you have a case for hating Flash.
Now, with any UI, you just have to get used to it and naturally it's frustrating for some to have to battle through the learning curve with anything when you already know how to do everything in some other UI paradigm. But that's where I stop semi-agreeing. GIMP has alot of odd quirks in UI design where technical requirements have been put before high-level UI design, ranging from the minor through to the genuinely perplexing. A common symptom of any open-source project.
I wasn't saying anything regarding GIMPs UI beyond its difference to Photoshops. When I last tried GIMP (many years ago now, so it may have changed since then) the UI was completely alien, and not only when compared to Photoshop. Honestly I think the main problem with most open source software's UIs is that those who are contributing aren't generally UI designers. Regardless, my point was basically that most pro-level users will not give GIMP a chance because of it's UI (as well as some unavoidable elitism - the "It's free, it can't be as good as this several hundred pound* program" mentality)
*I'm British - pound is the unit of currency, not the unit of weight.
In fact, one could probably say that being too close and too similar to another program is what's the problem. After all, if all you are is (say) a Photoshop clone, why should people choose the imitation rather than the real thing? (Sure, Photoshop costs money, but beyond that?)
Well, if the clone is both competent enough and free, then the clone wins hands down (like it did with me and OpenOffice.org). I'm not saying that all FOSS should try to be a clone of a commercial alternative but it shouldn't stray too far from the mould either. I haven't used GIMP in quite a while, but last time I did it felt completely alien; not only when compared to Photoshop, but also pretty much every program I've ever used. What would have been better would be if they had taken the basic layout from Photoshop and added/changed from there. Instead the UI is/was really confusing for no practical benefit.
P.S. you can use quote tags to quote people - if you know how HTML tags are made, just do that with the word quote as the tag
I think you'll find that while a large proportion of the vocal Flash haters are parrots for Jobs (Apple zealots seem pretty vocal on all issues even remotely Apple related), there are also a lot of others who dislike flash because it's proprietary or because they dislike plug-ins (those people will probably like this news up to a point) or because it's a CPU hog or whatever.
I think the main problem most "pseudo-professionals" have with GIMP is familiarity. I myself use OpenOffice.org regularly and the transition from Microsoft Office was extremely simple - download it and start using it. The same is not true of GIMP since it's UI is so different than Photoshops. These "pseudo-professionals", almost certainly have a long history with Photoshop, so understand how to do things using it's UI, but likely don't even know where to start with GIMP and write it off as useless. It is closed minded, but certainly understandable on a professional/semi-professional level. Blender seems to suffer the same problem, since it's UI is vastly different than any other 3D program I've tried (although since there are more available than in the photo-editing world no one program has a "monopoly" on the UI so it's not quite as bed).
Most FOSS doesn't tend to have this problem because it either does a specific task that has no industry standard UI, Emulates the industry standard UI (like OpenOffice.org) or is so simple that it makes little difference how the UI is designed as long as it works (things like 7-zip for example - its function is to open and create archives. You don't have 100s of filters and tools to use so everything can be put into a couple of menus and not be confusing).
As far as I'm concerned, Oblivion and Fallout 3 don't have a lot of replayability, but they do have a hell of a lot of continuous play time (playability?). While you can go back and create a whole new character, play it again and have a different experience, I find that simply continuing through with one character and doing everything is much more fun. I still haven't finished Oblivion, but only have 1 character which I have so far accumulated 111hrs. of gameplay with (according to Xfire). In Fallout 3, I have almost the same, 104hrs. with one character. In Fallout I have finished the main quest but I am far from finishing the game, or it's DLC. In neither game have I even scratched the surface of the mods available. Both are absolutely fantastic games and as far as I'm concerned they only have 2 problems: graphics and stability (the console versions just aren't the same though - the mods really do make the game so much better).
Also, it should be noted that the adverb "but" can indeed start a sentence, but the type of "but" used is clearly not an adverb. I probably shouldn't have made such a blanket statement as "NEVER start a sentence with "but"" without clarifying that. An example of the adverb starting a sentence would be "But a little rain fell that day", with "but" being synonymous with "merely", "just" or "only" (none of which would apply to the original post).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I'd agree with any of that. Sure it's pretty, but I dislike the UI of OS X and find it has quite a few fundamental flaws. My main OS is Windows 7 but I do use OS X quite regularly (almost daily - at least 4-5 days a week). I have used Linux, running both KDE and Gnome (although I haven't used Gnome in quite some time) and both seemed more intuitive than OS X. When talking about computers, the hardware is no more excellent than many PCs which cost significantly less. The only real difference there is the chassis, which are admittedly pretty, but not even close to worth the price of entry...and there are pretty PCs out there as well. I do NOT think they have excellent software, as a general rule anyway. Final Cut Pro is good, but for most other uses Macs rely on 3rd party software, be it Adobe for Photoshop, Microsoft for Office etc, which is no different or better on Windows. iTunes is pretty bad really (does the job, but it's not great), Safari is beaten by Chrome, Firefox and Opera (IMHO...but numbers wise at the very least Chrome beats it). It doesn't in my experience "just work" out of the box any better than Windows (certainly better than Linux though, but that's partly to do with the target demographic). As for the iPod and iPad (I assume iPhone is included in there somewhere) I find the UI acceptable, but far too simplistic (mainly due to the intentional lack of functionality) the hardware, especially on the iPhone, is poor by comparison to other smart phones and again most of the software is 3rd party.
However, he is the exact right person to nail down hardware and software guidelines. How do I know? I run Linux, Windows and OS X. OS X is - by *huge margins* - the best of the three to use day in, day out.
So what you're saying here is you prefer OS X, therefore Steve Jobs is the right person dictate hardware and software to the industry? As for "OS X is - by *huge margins* - the best of the three to use day in, day out.", I think what you actually mean is OS X is - by *huge margins* - the best of the three to use day in, day out FOR ME . It's only the best if you like it more and no-one can say definitively "This one is the best".
Apparently so: Muphry's law. :P
What do you mean? Isn't ADSL a subset of DSL? I'm fairly sure DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) is a description while ADSL (or Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) is an actual implementation/technology. There are many other forms of DSL as well: DSL technologies. As for being sat on top of the exchange, pretty much. I live maybe 2 miles away from mine, but I only get ~1mbps. Virgin certainly isn't available in my area, and even with ADSL 2+ when it becomes properly viable I'd only get ~4mbps, so no HD OnLive for me (heck, no SD Onlive at the moment :( ).
Really? Well that makes no sense at all. Guess this whole psuedo-flame-war was for nothing :P.
As for the weapon licensing thing, what kind of rifle is it? You certainly need a licence for guns, so maybe it's just that most licensed ones are hunting rifles or that it's easier to get a licence for one than other guns (hence my misconception).
You're not wrong there: it was indeed an EPIC fail. Why is that I always make stupid mistakes like that when in grammar nazi wars? Perhaps I just need to proof read a little more.
*laughs* Not really, just trying to change the world, one angry slashdotter at a time.
Well, I live in the countryside, so almost never have any interaction with the police. Even when in town, it's a fairly large town, but crime isn't all that much of a problem. As for the "Innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom and liberty", the first is certainly true over here when talking about court cases, but the second not so much. We have somewhat of a nanny state, which TBH isn't the best way of doing things but certainly seems to work. I myself a pretty liberal and very pro freedom and liberty, but I do NOT think all things should be a right - weaponry is one of them. I was a little extreme (for me anyway...not really all that extreme when you think about it) when talking about it earlier though. (I didn't really see it in terms of not being harassed by the police etc. Basically I didn't notice the inherent flaw in my argument, but hmar put me right on that one).
That sounds like it's in jest, but TBH it's kinda true. I didn't really think about it being misused by discriminating cops or whatever. It's not that I trust the police, but that I didn't really think about potential abuse. Now it has been brought up, I have changed my mind (see my reply to hmar)
That's certainly a fair point. I suppose what should really be illegal is the intent rather than the tool (although then you do sort of get into the realm of thought police...perhaps the attempt rather than intent...you get the idea). Now you put it that way, I certainly agree (just needed the right wording to see the point I guess). Knives I'm still not convinced on, be it pocket knives or not, but those would more often than not come under a legitimate use/reason anyway (in the same way a screwdriver would I guess) as long as it has more uses than simply a knife (unlike the buck knife someone else mentioned). You see people? All it takes is well reasoned argument and I changed my mind - stop getting so angry about everything and just be reasonable :).
but carrying a tool that can be used to do serious harm when there is no reason to do so should be illegal
Fuck you Mr. Nanny State. I think you made me throw up a little. By your logic, anyone trained in Martial Arts or previously in the military is now not allowed to walk around unescorted by police because of the fact that their very bodies are tools capable of doing "serious harm". Okay, so you don't want to count that one. That's fine. What about the toolbox I keep in my trunk? I work in an office, dealing with computers, why would I need tools in my trunk? ZOMG TERRORIST! Obviously the only reasonable answer is that I'm out to cause as much damage as possible everywhere I can. How do I even buy tools if I can't transport them at this point? Oh, ok, so it's okay if I have them in my car? In that case, why the hell do you people treat people who walk around like criminals? You know what? I like going for long walks at night. Typically I carry something to defend myself with because I realize that were I to be attacked, the law system would not be able to protect me, as they're too busy revenue generating on the state highways to actually be doing their job. Here's another one for you: Let's say you're a mechanic (auto, boat, plane, whatever, Hell, even just a machinist in a shop somewhere), who, for whatever reason, doesn't have a car. You own your own tools. You, for whatever reason, decide you want to take your own property home one night. Suddenly, this is impossible because you can't legally leave the property possessing your screwdriver/micrometer/torque wrench because of the fact that someone somewhere had the blessed insight to realize that possession of these items in public turns you into a savage and dangerous criminal who is beyond reason.
Sure it may seem a bit like a nanny state, but to be fair I am British, and that is how we treat a lot of things in general. Regardless, you and the others who have replied to me seem to have missed the point. A main point in that line you quoted was "when there is no reason to do so" . Transporting something from a store is certainly a legitimate use. Having tools in your car in case you break down is a legitimate use as well, but why have one in your pocket while walking in the street other than to transport it? Heck, even self defence is sort of a legitimate use, although that one would be hard to prove. As for the car thing, the legitimate use is transportation. The difference between assault rifles and cars is that other than causing another human being harm, there is no use for a gun that cannot be better dome with a different tool.
As for the "if you take away anything manufactured that can be used as a weapon, people will just beat the shit out of each other with loose bricks and heavy fallen branches from trees" argument, yes they probably would, but what is the legitimate use of carrying a branch with you around the town?
I think something you have to bear in mind is I am British - over here, it is illegal to own guns other than hunting rifles and those require a licence. It is illegal to carry knives in the street unless you can prove some legitimate reason for doing so (there are many types if knives that are simply illegal and cannot be bought or owned anywhere legally). Heck, even replica swords are illegal to buy (by which I mean actual full size metal ones - plastic ones don't count for obvious reasons) which I think is maybe going a little far, but certainly understandable (as for carrying one in public, well that is certainly a no-no). Here in the UK, where guns are illegal (exceptions above), gun crime is significantly lower than in the US. Knife crime is also lower, since you can't carry one and any knife that is solely produced as weaponry is simply illegal. This is my background, so it may go some way to explaining my position, even if you don't agree. Heck, even I am on the fence - I don't think making carrying a screwdriver illegal without a legitimate purpose would be a particularly effective or easy law to enforce, but I do err on the side of caution.
Woah! I think you're taking this a little far.
First off, I didn't say anyone should be locked up. Illegal != should be locked up. Also, I didn't say possession should be illegal. I am essentially equating it with knives - you can't really slash with a screwdriver, but you can certainly stab, so, like knives, WHERE and WHY you can have them should be controlled. It should be noted that I am from the UK, where it is illegal to carry a knife - I don't know what the laws are like in other countries in that regard.
Ok, so then I guess just because I can make a fist and smack someone in the nose with it, I should be locked up all based on a "what if"? So to prevent that everyone should be forced to have their hands amputated or wrapped up in big pillows? What's next with using that line of thinking? Oh wait, I have teeth that could be used to bite someone, because if I'm not using them to either chew food or enunciate with, I shouldn't have them? Let's just have everyone get their teeth pulled and get dentures. That way we can take them out when we aren't using them because they *MIGHT* be used to commit a crime. Oh wait, what about the dentist that help us maintain our teeth? They should be locked up also because they are contributing to a possible felon. etc./etc./etc.
That is a ludicrous oversimplification. A part of your body cannot be controlled in such a way. You cannot say it is illegal to have hands or teeth in public without saying you either cannot have hands or teeth at all or cannot be in public at all. Also, to do a great deal of harm with them would require INTENT anyway.
You even go so far as to contradict yourself when you state "simply having a set on your person has no really legitimate reason to be illegal". So having lockpicks is ok, but being a mechanic (not that being a mechanic matters) with a screwdriver just walking down the street is reason to be stopped/detained?
There is no contradiction here. This is essentially a risk assessment. Lockpicks cannot really be used as a weapon unless you really want to stab a mouse or something. They are small precision tools that cannot be used to do any meaningful harm (note that stealing from someone is not doing them physical harm unless the thing stolen is medicine or something). At worst they are tools that can be used to gain access to a property illegally. You cannot kill someone with a lock pick (well, you probably could if you really tried, but no more easily than keys or a ring or glasses or whatever). That is the distinction I am making - weapons should not be allowed in public (or at all really), so unless you have a legitimate reason for having such a thing in public, of which there are many, it should be illegal. Note that that does not mean being sent to jail. Also, as I said, if there was a legitimate reason for having a screwdriver in public, then it certainly shouldn't be illegal.
You Alphathon, are a MAJOR FSCKING IDIOT! and your line of thinking is one of the reasons why this country is screwed up as badly as it is.
Personal insults rarely get you anywhere on the internet and make seem like somewhat of a troll. Also, I think you mean way of thinking, because I highly doubt the fact that I thought something at a particular point in time is destroying a country. BTW, I think it's likely that we are not from the same country, so it's moot anyway. Now if you'd said the world...
Yes, unless you are using it for hunting or something for which is has a legitimate use.
A screwdriver can cause far more harm than a boot. You cannot stab someone in the heart with a boot. Sure if you really try (part of that whole intent part) you can cause serious harm. There is another difference though - legitimate usage. As I said "walking the streets with a screwdriver" isn't a very useful description. If you have a reason to have a screwdriver on you (repairing a car, fitting a light etc, heck even transporting it from the shop where you bought it) then fine. I'm not even saying that people should be picked up for it necessarily unless there is reason to believe they intend to use it for harm. Belts have a legitimate use everywhere when worn - to hold up trousers. Fists can't exactly be banned anywhere. Boots protect your feet. Basically, screwdrivers IN PUBLIC should probably be controlled in the same way and for exactly the same reasons as knives are (they to have legitimate uses, such as foot preparation, but I don't see you complaining about not being allowed to CARRY carving knives).
Honestly that doesn't surprise me, and I'm not sure it's actually a bad thing. Not that they should prosecute or anything (should be given a warning and nothing more IMHO) but just as it is perfectly reasonable and understandable for a mechanic to a screwdriver it is still capable of serious damage to a person. Obviously I don't know the circumstances (was he really "walking the streets" or just on a pavement [sidewalk] working on a car at the time for example) but carrying a tool that can be used to do serious harm when there is no reason to do so should be illegal (at the very least it could do accidental damage). Carrying lockpicks is slightly different, as doing so cannot do accidental harm beyond what keys or something similar could do. Carrying them may strengthen a case against you in a breaking and entering/burglary case but simply having a set on your person has no really legitimate reason to be illegal. Now carrying either with the intent to use them to harm or break in or whatever SHOULD be illegal, but only if intent can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Why a screwdriver differs is that there needs not be any intent in order to do harm.
So this is how the robot apocalypse is to start eh? Well, I for one...you get the idea.
As already stated, no theft or stealing has taken place in that set of crimes, unless you count identity theft. Here is what they would (probably) be called:
As for the breaking in, that would be breaking & entering and trespassing. Basically, just because you don't know the specific term for an offence does not give you free reign to lump it in with something else. Also, the copying of "the book you're writing for O'Reilly" WOULD be copyright infringement as long as you have written copyright info in it somewhere
You'll have to try harder than that - this is sound we're talking about, not EM. What you really need to do is cover your nuts in sound-proof foam.
You really are a Flash hater :). That guy you talk about certainly sounds like a moron, no doubt about it. I don't think that is a case that proves Flash is bad though, only that any tool in the wrong hands is evil. Take HTML tables for example - not evil in themselves but when an idiot designs a sites layout purely from tables they create something horrible. The same goes for things like animated .gifs *thinks back to the 90s when they were all the rage with (mostly) amateurs...bad times*. When you take everything you said together though; then you have a case for hating Flash.
Now, with any UI, you just have to get used to it and naturally it's frustrating for some to have to battle through the learning curve with anything when you already know how to do everything in some other UI paradigm. But that's where I stop semi-agreeing. GIMP has alot of odd quirks in UI design where technical requirements have been put before high-level UI design, ranging from the minor through to the genuinely perplexing. A common symptom of any open-source project.
I wasn't saying anything regarding GIMPs UI beyond its difference to Photoshops. When I last tried GIMP (many years ago now, so it may have changed since then) the UI was completely alien, and not only when compared to Photoshop. Honestly I think the main problem with most open source software's UIs is that those who are contributing aren't generally UI designers. Regardless, my point was basically that most pro-level users will not give GIMP a chance because of it's UI (as well as some unavoidable elitism - the "It's free, it can't be as good as this several hundred pound* program" mentality)
*I'm British - pound is the unit of currency, not the unit of weight.
In fact, one could probably say that being too close and too similar to another program is what's the problem. After all, if all you are is (say) a Photoshop clone, why should people choose the imitation rather than the real thing? (Sure, Photoshop costs money, but beyond that?)
Well, if the clone is both competent enough and free, then the clone wins hands down (like it did with me and OpenOffice.org). I'm not saying that all FOSS should try to be a clone of a commercial alternative but it shouldn't stray too far from the mould either. I haven't used GIMP in quite a while, but last time I did it felt completely alien; not only when compared to Photoshop, but also pretty much every program I've ever used. What would have been better would be if they had taken the basic layout from Photoshop and added/changed from there. Instead the UI is/was really confusing for no practical benefit.
P.S. you can use quote tags to quote people - if you know how HTML tags are made, just do that with the word quote as the tag
Oh, don't worry I totally agree. The AC said that it is "Just Apple Fanboys Parroting Jobs". I was just saying that such a claim is patently false.
I think you'll find that while a large proportion of the vocal Flash haters are parrots for Jobs (Apple zealots seem pretty vocal on all issues even remotely Apple related), there are also a lot of others who dislike flash because it's proprietary or because they dislike plug-ins (those people will probably like this news up to a point) or because it's a CPU hog or whatever.
I think the main problem most "pseudo-professionals" have with GIMP is familiarity. I myself use OpenOffice.org regularly and the transition from Microsoft Office was extremely simple - download it and start using it. The same is not true of GIMP since it's UI is so different than Photoshops. These "pseudo-professionals", almost certainly have a long history with Photoshop, so understand how to do things using it's UI, but likely don't even know where to start with GIMP and write it off as useless. It is closed minded, but certainly understandable on a professional/semi-professional level. Blender seems to suffer the same problem, since it's UI is vastly different than any other 3D program I've tried (although since there are more available than in the photo-editing world no one program has a "monopoly" on the UI so it's not quite as bed).
Most FOSS doesn't tend to have this problem because it either does a specific task that has no industry standard UI, Emulates the industry standard UI (like OpenOffice.org) or is so simple that it makes little difference how the UI is designed as long as it works (things like 7-zip for example - its function is to open and create archives. You don't have 100s of filters and tools to use so everything can be put into a couple of menus and not be confusing).
As far as I'm concerned, Oblivion and Fallout 3 don't have a lot of replayability, but they do have a hell of a lot of continuous play time (playability?). While you can go back and create a whole new character, play it again and have a different experience, I find that simply continuing through with one character and doing everything is much more fun. I still haven't finished Oblivion, but only have 1 character which I have so far accumulated 111hrs. of gameplay with (according to Xfire). In Fallout 3, I have almost the same, 104hrs. with one character. In Fallout I have finished the main quest but I am far from finishing the game, or it's DLC. In neither game have I even scratched the surface of the mods available. Both are absolutely fantastic games and as far as I'm concerned they only have 2 problems: graphics and stability (the console versions just aren't the same though - the mods really do make the game so much better).
Also, it should be noted that the adverb "but" can indeed start a sentence, but the type of "but" used is clearly not an adverb. I probably shouldn't have made such a blanket statement as "NEVER start a sentence with "but"" without clarifying that. An example of the adverb starting a sentence would be "But a little rain fell that day", with "but" being synonymous with "merely", "just" or "only" (none of which would apply to the original post).