I'm currently working on a project which requires I copy and paste text from an intranet site. Bloody Word 2000 thinks that it's sensible to past the text as html. I have to stop what I'm doing, pick up the bloody mouse, and select 'paste special' in order to paste text as text into the document. Not very productive IMHO.
That's absurd. You think when the average user marks and pastes something with formatted text, and pastes into a document, they expect the computer to strip out all formatting? You think that should be the default?
A reasonable person would expect that what you cut is what you paste. Rather than bitching, maybe you should be happy that the program gives you the option to do what you want.
During the half-hour conference, which took place earlier this year, he ran though this math with Fox: At a retail price of $209 for Windows and $440 for Office, it could cost the country as much as $3.25 billion just for license fees. "Our country needs that money for many other things," de Icaza said he told Fox. He said Fox seemed to be surprised by the cost analysis, but he made no promises.
What the hell? Fox was probably surprised because he couldn't believe that Miguel doesn't understand that an entire country is not going to pay retail.
Too many geeks damage their own cause with statements like this. It's always been a conundrum to me: how is it that many programmers are so smart when it comes to programming, but so absolutely brain-dead stupid when it comes to other things?
I mean, you're meeting with the President of your freakin' country and you're spouting absolute bullshit like that? Why not spend a little time and do some research on bulk rates that Microsoft provides? Then divide that by 2 because Microsoft is not going to let an entire country stop using Microsoft products.
And I'll bet he has absolutely no clue how much he damaged his credibility in that one meeting. If I was the President, and I had a "damn fool" who can't even understand bulk rates, why would I trust his opinion on anything else when it comes to an incredibly important decision like this?
For mainstream everyday use (surfing, word-processing, fiddling with a spreadsheet) Linux is fine.
Unless you want to actually print anything. One of the biggest problems with Linux -- that I don't see being significantly dealt with -- is that absolute horror of the printing subsystem. Ghostscript is a total joke.
Linux is at least 10 years behind Windows and the Mac when it comes to "printing that just works" on pretty much any cheap-o printer.
Rags-to-rags and riches-to-riches are much more common than rags-to-riches and riches-to-rags.
Obviously that's true, and that will always be true. So what's your point? Are the only two groups in your philosophy "rags" and "riches"? You don't have to go from rags-to-riches for your lot to improve. Society improves immensely when you have lots and lots of rags-to-middle-class stories.
I wonder how many antebellum-South plantation owners RM101 thinks had once been plantation slaves. It certainly wasn't 99.99% of them.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but what happened 100 years, 50 years -- 1 year ago -- is totally irrelevent to what someone does today. If people like you would stop making excuses for everone else's failures (e.g., society, the rich, the privileged, government "not caring"), people would be a whole lot better off.
After all, it's their property and they're allowed to do anything they want to me while I'm on it, no?
No. Because you are paying them for using their property. You have a contract between you and them. In fact, renters would be a lot happier if they would realize they are employing the landlords, not the other way around.
On the other hand, you are more than welcome to enter into a contract allowing them to set up cameras to watch you, if you so desire.
It's largely bestowed, and merit is rarely a consideration [...] then get your elitist ass to the peace corp and do some good before your misguided notion of how shit works finds you penniless and hating with all your might those pussies of priviledge from whence you did not arise.
[rant mode] OK, I have to deal with this head-on. I hope to God you NEVER come in contact with anyone down on their luck. It's people like YOU that keep people down, not this largely mythical "privilege class". You convince people that they have no chance, that people in power will never give them any opportunity, and their only recourse is to sit and wait for government to "help them". Meanwhile, people every day pull themselves out of poverty by getting an education, working hard, and earning their way out of the ghetto. All the time being pulled back down by people like you telling them they'll never make it.
I daresay my positive attitude has helped more people in my life than you have in your entire life. How many people have you encouraged to get an education? How many people have you told that they can do it, no matter what, if they try?
You make me sick. Stay in your little self-imposed hole and stop poisoning everyone around you.
Why do you believe that you have a right to privacy while employed and paid by someone else, and while using their toilet, sink, etc?
Because that qualifies as a "break time". On the other hand, if there was a huge problem with drug trafficking in the bathroom, employers would be within their rights to install cameras to shut it down.
Why? So the CEO of the company can use this precious company money to go golfing? Or so executives can go to corporate sponsored dinners? Or so they can go to company bought seating at sports arenas?
Damn straight right. I'm sorry, but the perks go up depending on how valuable you are to the company. If you want more perks, then be more valuable. Or do you think that the CEO of IBM should have exactly the same privileges as the janitor?
Why do you care so little for your rights while the rich and privileged certainly enjoy those rights?
Because the privileged have earned their privileges. I don't expect people to give me anything I haven't earned. Why do you?
The only expectation I have is opportunity -- everyone has the opportunity to get the privileges. And everyone does, although some have it easier than others. But then I live in the real world, where everyone has some advantage over everyone else. You suck it up and move forward.
Of course, that's probably the switching speed of GA transistors, not overall performance gains.
Does anyone know what percentage of time in the typical processor is spent waiting for transistors to switch versus simple speed-of-light propagation delays, or any other bottlenecks that this doesn't cover? In other words, how much bottom-line clock speed increase would this be likely to give?
It'd be a great piece if he talked to the larger issue of any employee's right to privacy. It's kind of ironic that BOFH policies hit the news with judges, but what about the rest of us?
Why do you believe that you have a right to privacy while employed and paid by someone else, and while using their equipment, internet connection, etc?
If you want to make private communications, then do it on your own time, with your own resources.
But being an omnivore does not mean my place in a the food chain is too eat, 3 times a day, pork rinds and chili dogs made from animals who have never known their natural place in the world or the food chain.
Why not? When a lion eats an antelope, neither animal "knows" their place in the food chain, their just doing what comes naturally.
then you know that cows eating ground up cows...
Cannibalism is quite common in the animal kingdom, in fact, it's quite natural. Why waste resources for "romantic" reasons? Our taboo on it is based on the fact that we value human life, and don't think we should be used as food.
Well, you brought economics, economies and economists into the discussion, which seems to imply that you take issue with how economists measure economies.
But if you want to limit the discussion to dictionary definitions of "workers", then your point is somewhat invalid also. When we talk about "workers" in the economy, that implies "paid workers". Otherwise, the whole word becomes meaningless, since by definition everything in life is "work" of some sort, including breathing.
Economics deals with models and these models only rarely take into account long-term future. Your kid is basically nothing but a risky investment which may or may not pay off.
Actually, there's a less cynical, less romantic and ultimately more logical explanation. Economics deals with the transfer and creation of wealth, as measured by money. The GDP measurements have a very real purpose, and that is knowing how much money to print (very basically). We want the cash supply to roughly track wealth creation.
When I mow my lawn, I am doing necessary work, but I haven't really contributed anything to the economy. When I hire someone to do my work, I am initiating a transfer of wealth from myself to the person I hired. It's the same situation with mothers.
I am the first person to recognize the contributions of woman who care for their children rather than (opinion alert) selfishly throw them into daycare (end opinion), but we shouldn't screw with economic models for the sake of politics and making people feel good.
To avoid losing karma (even though I've explained economics ON-topic before), I'm posting AC.
Having a bit of fun with an award committee that snubbed Doug Adams for being too light 20 years ago and now sees fit to reward something just as light seems less serious than you make it out to be.
I was focusing more on his first statement, than his second. Maybe I overreacted, but that's the same attitude that causes people to put up "kill Barney" sites. It's as if kids should not be allowed to have any fun. Yeah, Mary Kate and Ashley magazine is probably not going to appeal to me, but it isn't written for me.
But to his original point, I'm not sure I would have picked HHGTTG as a "dramatic presentation", either.
btw: I appreciate that your response was more mature than mine. I apologize.
I started to write an immature post, but I decided against posting it.:)
That's a pretty hefty response to a joke you obviously didn't get.
Ah, screw him. It really bugs me when people mock something only because it's popular. You could apply everything you said about me to the original poster, and it would probably be true. You can usually identify people who have personality problems by the things that they feel they have to mock and destroy.
Is it just me, or is the US now falling behind in all fields, from bio-tech through freedom of expression to telecoms.
It's you. Read the paper for the last, oh, 50 years. Every few years (if not every few months), we have sky-is-falling stories that US is falling behind in this, messing up that, blah blah. And somehow, a few years later, we end up leading the industry.
It's called free market capitalism. Of course, whenever the US falls behind in a particular market, fools start crowing that "this proves that capitalism doesn't work! The government needs to step in and take control!". Of course, capitalist markets are self-correcting markets, and things fix themselves automatically. It's a beautiful thing.
Take biotech -- all Bush's decision means is that biotech companies can't go to the public trough. This is a good thing. It means that we will get much more private investment, which means the advances will come MUCH more rapidly. If the government is handing out money, then research has no incentive to make fast progress, only make enough progress to keep the government checks coming.
There is a reason that almost all medical and drug advances come from private medical and drug companies.
No, it doesn't. In fact it loses some of the nice DPS and NeWS things, like there being no real standard way to embed a PDF drawing in another PDF (you can encapsulate a PS in another PS -- that is what EPS is for).
I don't know much about Display PDF, but isn't that what a Window is for? Presumably you can create windows objects wherever you want.
Also with NeWS at least you could have the "display engine" do a fair bit of local processing, PDF dispenses with most (or all) of the programmability, it is pretty much just a rendering system.
I see that is a good thing, frankly. It seems to me that programmability belongs at the programming level, not at the rendering level. I bet stripping that out reduces the complexity considerably. I mean, if you want a scripting layer, it wouldn't be hard to define something like that above the rendering layer.
In fact, I really have to congratulate Adobe for actually reducing bloat on a standard, rather than increasing it. I'm a big believer in things being only as complex as it needs to be, and no more.
Re:New Hugo category: Best Twee Fiction
on
Harry Potter Wins Hugo
·
· Score: 3, Flamebait
Given that logic, one cannot make fun of Mary Kate & Ashley Magazine without reading it cover to cover. Yikes.
I've never read the magazine. Why would I assume that I could make fun of it?
But given YOUR logic, I can go ahead and assume you're a child molestor, right? After all, I haven't met you, but you've indicated that it's OK to make any assumption I want without any evidence. I will notify the FBI immediately.
Of course, we know why you're making both these assumptions: popularity. Anything that is popular must be automatically bad. I picture you in your dank cellar, reading some obscure book, quietly seething that your book is not given the popularity that these "damn Harry Potter books" are given. Yes, it must be a conspiracy. The Hugo panel must have been bought off. Otherwise, why would they continue to ignore your fabulous, underrated book? You go back to reading your book for the 80th time.
Come out of the cellar, man, and just admit your book is a piece of crap. That's why people ignore it.
It was... okay, I guess. I was expecting something a lot more complex, though, and I was disappointed - it reminded me more of Enid Blyton than anything else.
A book doesn't bave to appeal to everyone to be a great book.
I suspect this award was given due to popularity, and the cynical side of my nature suspects that at least part of that popularity is due to their safe, harmless nature.
And a book that is popular doesn't automatically mean it's a bad or overrated book. I suspect that most of the bitching about this book is due to its popularity. I've never understood why people feel the need to mock things that are popular. Jealousy that their pet books are not as popular, perhaps?
Is anyone actually proud of this ugly hack? Call me crazy, but antialising should be supported at the font rendering level, not at the application (or app toolkit) level.
Can someone *please* come up with a spec for overhauling font management in X? Overhauling X in general? Just steal display PDF from Apple/Adobe?
Something??? This is unbelievably crude, and the OSS community should be embarrased.
The twin articles from Security Focus, for example, one saying Linux could be more secure due to more third party support and the other saying OpenBSD was more secure by design, would have been good for days of debates and flames, and is actually significant, at least if you run either.
And what exactly is *new* about any of that? What about hasn't been debated a million times before? Everyone already knows that BSD pays more attention to security than Linux.
Here's a hint: If you want something posted, make sure it says something *new* about the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm currently working on a project which requires I copy and paste text from an intranet site. Bloody Word 2000 thinks that it's sensible to past the text as html. I have to stop what I'm doing, pick up the bloody mouse, and select 'paste special' in order to paste text as text into the document. Not very productive IMHO.
That's absurd. You think when the average user marks and pastes something with formatted text, and pastes into a document, they expect the computer to strip out all formatting? You think that should be the default?
A reasonable person would expect that what you cut is what you paste. Rather than bitching, maybe you should be happy that the program gives you the option to do what you want.
During the half-hour conference, which took place earlier this year, he ran though this math with Fox: At a retail price of $209 for Windows and $440 for Office, it could cost the country as much as $3.25 billion just for license fees. "Our country needs that money for many other things," de Icaza said he told Fox. He said Fox seemed to be surprised by the cost analysis, but he made no promises.
What the hell? Fox was probably surprised because he couldn't believe that Miguel doesn't understand that an entire country is not going to pay retail.
Too many geeks damage their own cause with statements like this. It's always been a conundrum to me: how is it that many programmers are so smart when it comes to programming, but so absolutely brain-dead stupid when it comes to other things?
I mean, you're meeting with the President of your freakin' country and you're spouting absolute bullshit like that? Why not spend a little time and do some research on bulk rates that Microsoft provides? Then divide that by 2 because Microsoft is not going to let an entire country stop using Microsoft products.
And I'll bet he has absolutely no clue how much he damaged his credibility in that one meeting. If I was the President, and I had a "damn fool" who can't even understand bulk rates, why would I trust his opinion on anything else when it comes to an incredibly important decision like this?
For mainstream everyday use (surfing, word-processing, fiddling with a spreadsheet) Linux is fine.
Unless you want to actually print anything. One of the biggest problems with Linux -- that I don't see being significantly dealt with -- is that absolute horror of the printing subsystem. Ghostscript is a total joke.
Linux is at least 10 years behind Windows and the Mac when it comes to "printing that just works" on pretty much any cheap-o printer.
Rags-to-rags and riches-to-riches are much more common than rags-to-riches and riches-to-rags.
Obviously that's true, and that will always be true. So what's your point? Are the only two groups in your philosophy "rags" and "riches"? You don't have to go from rags-to-riches for your lot to improve. Society improves immensely when you have lots and lots of rags-to-middle-class stories.
I wonder how many antebellum-South plantation owners RM101 thinks had once been plantation slaves. It certainly wasn't 99.99% of them.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but what happened 100 years, 50 years -- 1 year ago -- is totally irrelevent to what someone does today. If people like you would stop making excuses for everone else's failures (e.g., society, the rich, the privileged, government "not caring"), people would be a whole lot better off.
After all, it's their property and they're allowed to do anything they want to me while I'm on it, no?
No. Because you are paying them for using their property. You have a contract between you and them. In fact, renters would be a lot happier if they would realize they are employing the landlords, not the other way around.
On the other hand, you are more than welcome to enter into a contract allowing them to set up cameras to watch you, if you so desire.
It's largely bestowed, and merit is rarely a consideration [...] then get your elitist ass to the peace corp and do some good before your misguided notion of how shit works finds you penniless and hating with all your might those pussies of priviledge from whence you did not arise.
[rant mode] OK, I have to deal with this head-on. I hope to God you NEVER come in contact with anyone down on their luck. It's people like YOU that keep people down, not this largely mythical "privilege class". You convince people that they have no chance, that people in power will never give them any opportunity, and their only recourse is to sit and wait for government to "help them". Meanwhile, people every day pull themselves out of poverty by getting an education, working hard, and earning their way out of the ghetto. All the time being pulled back down by people like you telling them they'll never make it.
I daresay my positive attitude has helped more people in my life than you have in your entire life. How many people have you encouraged to get an education? How many people have you told that they can do it, no matter what, if they try?
You make me sick. Stay in your little self-imposed hole and stop poisoning everyone around you.
I guess the next logical question is how fast do signals currently propagate as compared to the speed of light?
E-mail, arguably the most successful of all computer applications, has grown so rapidly that it' threatens to veer out-of-control for many people.
I saw the article, and then only read that first line. I then looked at the author, and thought, "Yup, knew it -- Katz." :)
Why do you believe that you have a right to privacy while employed and paid by someone else, and while using their toilet, sink, etc?
Because that qualifies as a "break time". On the other hand, if there was a huge problem with drug trafficking in the bathroom, employers would be within their rights to install cameras to shut it down.
Why? So the CEO of the company can use this precious company money to go golfing? Or so executives can go to corporate sponsored dinners? Or so they can go to company bought seating at sports arenas?
Damn straight right. I'm sorry, but the perks go up depending on how valuable you are to the company. If you want more perks, then be more valuable. Or do you think that the CEO of IBM should have exactly the same privileges as the janitor?
Why do you care so little for your rights while the rich and privileged certainly enjoy those rights?
Because the privileged have earned their privileges. I don't expect people to give me anything I haven't earned. Why do you?
The only expectation I have is opportunity -- everyone has the opportunity to get the privileges. And everyone does, although some have it easier than others. But then I live in the real world, where everyone has some advantage over everyone else. You suck it up and move forward.
Of course, that's probably the switching speed of GA transistors, not overall performance gains.
Does anyone know what percentage of time in the typical processor is spent waiting for transistors to switch versus simple speed-of-light propagation delays, or any other bottlenecks that this doesn't cover? In other words, how much bottom-line clock speed increase would this be likely to give?
It'd be a great piece if he talked to the larger issue of any employee's right to privacy. It's kind of ironic that BOFH policies hit the news with judges, but what about the rest of us?
Why do you believe that you have a right to privacy while employed and paid by someone else, and while using their equipment, internet connection, etc?
If you want to make private communications, then do it on your own time, with your own resources.
But being an omnivore does not mean my place in a the food chain is too eat, 3 times a day, pork rinds and chili dogs made from animals who have never known their natural place in the world or the food chain.
Why not? When a lion eats an antelope, neither animal "knows" their place in the food chain, their just doing what comes naturally.
then you know that cows eating ground up cows...
Cannibalism is quite common in the animal kingdom, in fact, it's quite natural. Why waste resources for "romantic" reasons? Our taboo on it is based on the fact that we value human life, and don't think we should be used as food.
I didn't suggest that we should.
Well, you brought economics, economies and economists into the discussion, which seems to imply that you take issue with how economists measure economies.
But if you want to limit the discussion to dictionary definitions of "workers", then your point is somewhat invalid also. When we talk about "workers" in the economy, that implies "paid workers". Otherwise, the whole word becomes meaningless, since by definition everything in life is "work" of some sort, including breathing.
Economics deals with models and these models only rarely take into account long-term future. Your kid is basically nothing but a risky investment which may or may not pay off.
Actually, there's a less cynical, less romantic and ultimately more logical explanation. Economics deals with the transfer and creation of wealth, as measured by money. The GDP measurements have a very real purpose, and that is knowing how much money to print (very basically). We want the cash supply to roughly track wealth creation.
When I mow my lawn, I am doing necessary work, but I haven't really contributed anything to the economy. When I hire someone to do my work, I am initiating a transfer of wealth from myself to the person I hired. It's the same situation with mothers.
I am the first person to recognize the contributions of woman who care for their children rather than (opinion alert) selfishly throw them into daycare (end opinion), but we shouldn't screw with economic models for the sake of politics and making people feel good.
To avoid losing karma (even though I've explained economics ON-topic before), I'm posting AC.
I've got Karma to spare. :)
Having a bit of fun with an award committee that snubbed Doug Adams for being too light 20 years ago and now sees fit to reward something just as light seems less serious than you make it out to be.
I was focusing more on his first statement, than his second. Maybe I overreacted, but that's the same attitude that causes people to put up "kill Barney" sites. It's as if kids should not be allowed to have any fun. Yeah, Mary Kate and Ashley magazine is probably not going to appeal to me, but it isn't written for me.
But to his original point, I'm not sure I would have picked HHGTTG as a "dramatic presentation", either.
btw: I appreciate that your response was more mature than mine. I apologize.
I started to write an immature post, but I decided against posting it. :)
That's a pretty hefty response to a joke you obviously didn't get.
Ah, screw him. It really bugs me when people mock something only because it's popular. You could apply everything you said about me to the original poster, and it would probably be true. You can usually identify people who have personality problems by the things that they feel they have to mock and destroy.
Is it just me, or is the US now falling behind in all fields, from bio-tech through freedom of expression to telecoms.
It's you. Read the paper for the last, oh, 50 years. Every few years (if not every few months), we have sky-is-falling stories that US is falling behind in this, messing up that, blah blah. And somehow, a few years later, we end up leading the industry.
It's called free market capitalism. Of course, whenever the US falls behind in a particular market, fools start crowing that "this proves that capitalism doesn't work! The government needs to step in and take control!". Of course, capitalist markets are self-correcting markets, and things fix themselves automatically. It's a beautiful thing.
Take biotech -- all Bush's decision means is that biotech companies can't go to the public trough. This is a good thing. It means that we will get much more private investment, which means the advances will come MUCH more rapidly. If the government is handing out money, then research has no incentive to make fast progress, only make enough progress to keep the government checks coming.
There is a reason that almost all medical and drug advances come from private medical and drug companies.
No, it doesn't. In fact it loses some of the nice DPS and NeWS things, like there being no real standard way to embed a PDF drawing in another PDF (you can encapsulate a PS in another PS -- that is what EPS is for).
I don't know much about Display PDF, but isn't that what a Window is for? Presumably you can create windows objects wherever you want.
Also with NeWS at least you could have the "display engine" do a fair bit of local processing, PDF dispenses with most (or all) of the programmability, it is pretty much just a rendering system.
I see that is a good thing, frankly. It seems to me that programmability belongs at the programming level, not at the rendering level. I bet stripping that out reduces the complexity considerably. I mean, if you want a scripting layer, it wouldn't be hard to define something like that above the rendering layer.
In fact, I really have to congratulate Adobe for actually reducing bloat on a standard, rather than increasing it. I'm a big believer in things being only as complex as it needs to be, and no more.
Given that logic, one cannot make fun of Mary Kate & Ashley Magazine without reading it cover to cover. Yikes.
I've never read the magazine. Why would I assume that I could make fun of it?
But given YOUR logic, I can go ahead and assume you're a child molestor, right? After all, I haven't met you, but you've indicated that it's OK to make any assumption I want without any evidence. I will notify the FBI immediately.
Of course, we know why you're making both these assumptions: popularity. Anything that is popular must be automatically bad. I picture you in your dank cellar, reading some obscure book, quietly seething that your book is not given the popularity that these "damn Harry Potter books" are given. Yes, it must be a conspiracy. The Hugo panel must have been bought off. Otherwise, why would they continue to ignore your fabulous, underrated book? You go back to reading your book for the 80th time.
Come out of the cellar, man, and just admit your book is a piece of crap. That's why people ignore it.
I imagine it's simply that philosophers aren't "exciting" enough for all the ADD-afflicted American audiences.
Or maybe that "philosopher" has a much different connotation in American English rather than British English.
But hey, don't let logic stop you when a perfectly good cynical explanation will do.
It was... okay, I guess. I was expecting something a lot more complex, though, and I was disappointed - it reminded me more of Enid Blyton than anything else.
A book doesn't bave to appeal to everyone to be a great book.
I suspect this award was given due to popularity, and the cynical side of my nature suspects that at least part of that popularity is due to their safe, harmless nature.
And a book that is popular doesn't automatically mean it's a bad or overrated book. I suspect that most of the bitching about this book is due to its popularity. I've never understood why people feel the need to mock things that are popular. Jealousy that their pet books are not as popular, perhaps?
Is anyone actually proud of this ugly hack? Call me crazy, but antialising should be supported at the font rendering level, not at the application (or app toolkit) level.
Can someone *please* come up with a spec for overhauling font management in X? Overhauling X in general? Just steal display PDF from Apple/Adobe?
Something??? This is unbelievably crude, and the OSS community should be embarrased.
The twin articles from Security Focus, for example, one saying Linux could be more secure due to more third party support and the other saying OpenBSD was more secure by design, would have been good for days of debates and flames, and is actually significant, at least if you run either.
And what exactly is *new* about any of that? What about hasn't been debated a million times before? Everyone already knows that BSD pays more attention to security than Linux.
Here's a hint: If you want something posted, make sure it says something *new* about the subject.
Uh, those articles don't sound particularly interesting. It sounds like stuff that has been hashed a million times before.
Personally, I've have 3 out 9 articles accepted. Your articles definitely qualify as "trivia".