Now likely I wasn't using OSX effectively, but I can tell you from an empirical 12 month test that clicking on a word tab at the bottom of the screen was more efficient for me than minimizing the document so that I could find it later as it went to the dock or hunting around all tiny images when using the Expose button.
Umm, I use Macs almost all the time, and I almost never "minimize" a document -- certainly never for the purpose of switching to work on a different document. Just command-tab (just like you would alt-tab in Windows) if you don't like the doc. As for expose, I'm not sure I know anyone who actually finds that feature useful.
I'm a lot more concerned about the legitimate and semi-legitimate companies that install spyware and malware with their software. At least when this kind of crap goes up on a torrent site, there are 7 posts within an hour or two warning other users that there's malware in the program. Whereas when a Microsoft or Sony sets you up the bomb they spend months denying there's a problem first. That still doesn't excuse the lazy user who installs whatever without checking it out first, but I don't think it's accurate to say that "pirated" software is inherently less secure.
"Once all the Germans were warlike, and mean But that couldn't happen again We taught them a lesson, in 1918 And they've hardly bothered us since then"
I've been in a couple situations where a bunch of people called 911 at the same time from the same place, and in both cases a few of us got a busy signal. My assumption was that this was a feature to prevent the very kind of overload you're talking about.
Good point; that would seem to go directly against the establishment clause, since by determining that the LDS is a religion and that, say, the LSD is not a religion, the government has "respected an establishment of religion." Somebody needs to tell Newdow to quit whining about taking "so help me God" out of official shibboleths and spend his time pressing this issue instead....
It's a far cry from being "quite fine with churchmen attempting to influence the flock" to giving the churchmen billions of dollars in subsidies and saying "do what thou wilt" with it, which is what we do every year that we don't collect taxes from them. They may be more efficient at helping the needy on a dollar to dollar basis, but surely you don't think every dollar the government hands the churches goes directly to helping the needy? I could be supportive of tax breaks to faith based programs that specifically help people while still collecting taxes on the income of the institutions themselves, but that's not the situation here.
In my opinion, churches that take stances on political issues like that should lose their tax-exempt status, as the clause under which they are tax exempt clearly prohibits political activism.
Perhaps I'll get modded down for this, but I'll agree and raise you one -- I think churches should lose their tax-exempt status regardless of whether they take stances on political issues. The separation of church and state is possible without treating churches as if they are not a part of the society they generate income from. The Constitution says the state shall not respect an establishment of religion; it does not say that attaching the label "religion" to anyone relieves them of basic social responsibilities. Appraise the Lord!
Google's basic argument is correct; they're probably hoping to highlight the more far-reaching economic implications, however. It's not just about Google's ability to hire competitively. The whole state of California just said "no" to billions of dollars in revenue that we were already seeing start to come in during the period when marriage was legal for all. It's just too bad the "No on 8" campaign was so lousy; it would have been really smart for them to highlight this point themselves during the campaign and actually tried to defeat Prop 8 directly rather than fighting through the courts now, which is pissing a lot of people off, even some who voted No to begin with.
My brother did this once with caffeine pills when he was in his teens. He was trying to work but it wound up making him nauseous and jittery, and he started freaking out.
He somehow decided that he could mitigate the effects of caffeine with alcohol. So he hit Dad's liquor cabinet. Half a bottle of scotch (the good stuff too!) later, he was breaking things and stumbling around the house.
Our parents were not happy when they got home that night.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't speak French; can you repeat that in Freedom please?
Of course the Linux guy will say Linux. And the Apple guy Apple. So on and so forth.
Actually, I have it on good authority that it's the Commodore 64 that played the biggest role in causing these layoffs...
You better get at least 63" for that kinda scratch.
Dog poo does not yet smell like peppermint.
Give the guy a few days on the job at least! I have it on high authority that the executive order on peppermint dog poo is, erm, in the pipes.
Canadian cents...
Now likely I wasn't using OSX effectively, but I can tell you from an empirical 12 month test that clicking on a word tab at the bottom of the screen was more efficient for me than minimizing the document so that I could find it later as it went to the dock or hunting around all tiny images when using the Expose button.
Umm, I use Macs almost all the time, and I almost never "minimize" a document -- certainly never for the purpose of switching to work on a different document. Just command-tab (just like you would alt-tab in Windows) if you don't like the doc. As for expose, I'm not sure I know anyone who actually finds that feature useful.
I'm a lot more concerned about the legitimate and semi-legitimate companies that install spyware and malware with their software. At least when this kind of crap goes up on a torrent site, there are 7 posts within an hour or two warning other users that there's malware in the program. Whereas when a Microsoft or Sony sets you up the bomb they spend months denying there's a problem first. That still doesn't excuse the lazy user who installs whatever without checking it out first, but I don't think it's accurate to say that "pirated" software is inherently less secure.
"Once all the Germans were warlike, and mean
But that couldn't happen again
We taught them a lesson, in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then"
BTW, figures are fatal U.S. military casualties only
I think that's exactly the problem with this line of discussion.
I wondered that too; and then on top of it I read this:
The software: currently weâ(TM)re running a full install of Ubuntu Linux on the prototype with a custom Webkit browser.
So if we're skipping the "resource sucking" parts of the OS, why are we running a full install of it?
His brother-in-law's two-year-old did.
I've been in a couple situations where a bunch of people called 911 at the same time from the same place, and in both cases a few of us got a busy signal. My assumption was that this was a feature to prevent the very kind of overload you're talking about.
I feel safer already!
y?
Bunch of fuckin Nazis.
You're right -- these passwords are easy to crack, once you post them to slashdot.
I hate that bank!! I lost $A_LOTTA_FUCKIN_MONEY in one of their ATM machines...
Good point; that would seem to go directly against the establishment clause, since by determining that the LDS is a religion and that, say, the LSD is not a religion, the government has "respected an establishment of religion." Somebody needs to tell Newdow to quit whining about taking "so help me God" out of official shibboleths and spend his time pressing this issue instead....
The Church made a pretty unambiguous call (practically a demand) to its members to contribute; this becomes a matter of splitting hairs.
It's a far cry from being "quite fine with churchmen attempting to influence the flock" to giving the churchmen billions of dollars in subsidies and saying "do what thou wilt" with it, which is what we do every year that we don't collect taxes from them. They may be more efficient at helping the needy on a dollar to dollar basis, but surely you don't think every dollar the government hands the churches goes directly to helping the needy? I could be supportive of tax breaks to faith based programs that specifically help people while still collecting taxes on the income of the institutions themselves, but that's not the situation here.
In my opinion, churches that take stances on political issues like that should lose their tax-exempt status, as the clause under which they are tax exempt clearly prohibits political activism.
Perhaps I'll get modded down for this, but I'll agree and raise you one -- I think churches should lose their tax-exempt status regardless of whether they take stances on political issues. The separation of church and state is possible without treating churches as if they are not a part of the society they generate income from. The Constitution says the state shall not respect an establishment of religion; it does not say that attaching the label "religion" to anyone relieves them of basic social responsibilities. Appraise the Lord!
Google's basic argument is correct; they're probably hoping to highlight the more far-reaching economic implications, however. It's not just about Google's ability to hire competitively. The whole state of California just said "no" to billions of dollars in revenue that we were already seeing start to come in during the period when marriage was legal for all. It's just too bad the "No on 8" campaign was so lousy; it would have been really smart for them to highlight this point themselves during the campaign and actually tried to defeat Prop 8 directly rather than fighting through the courts now, which is pissing a lot of people off, even some who voted No to begin with.
Rickrolld? We got fucking rickrolled by Nancy fucking Pelosi? What the fuck is the world coming to?
But you will feel that way so it just make them more likely to succeed!
My brother did this once with caffeine pills when he was in his teens. He was trying to work but it wound up making him nauseous and jittery, and he started freaking out.
He somehow decided that he could mitigate the effects of caffeine with alcohol. So he hit Dad's liquor cabinet. Half a bottle of scotch (the good stuff too!) later, he was breaking things and stumbling around the house.
Our parents were not happy when they got home that night.