I feel really sorry for my FBI "guardian angel". Must be really boring.
In other news, "The Government" is well known to be incompetent, so does that make me safe from their interference with my evil plots?
I get equal amusement from listening to people who believe "The Government" is either all powerful or all powerless. It's just people, doing whatever they think their job entails, or sometimes trying to enrich or empower themselves in more or less ethical ways. Or just hanging on until retirement. Or in the case of elected politicians, doing and saying whatever they think is most likely to get them re-elected, and to hell with understanding the issues.
I understand and to some degree agree with your point. However, the primary concern leading various entities to try to restrict the use of the internet is with people distributing copies, whether for free or for money, not with people making copies. If you make a copy and keep it to yourself, the internet is probably not involved.
I do know that some IP "owners" have a desire to keep you from even making copies for yourself, but that's another issue altogether, and one on which my opinions are less conflicted.
Please, please, tell me who these new uncorrupted politicians are, where I can find them, and how I can support them. I want them on my ballot, ASAP. I have never seen any there.
The money doesn't go into the politician's personal bank account. Instead, it is used to help the politician retain or increase personal political power, which is the currency that means something to politicians. They are there because they want power, not money. Money is simply a tool to gain power, and campaign money is better than personal money for that, anyway. Most of these politicians don't need any more personal money, but they drool over more power.
This is why in my opinion lobbying (as designed, not as practiced) is fine but campaign finance by donation will destroy the nation, eventually. Especially now that corporation officers can use stockholders' money to buy politicians, without the consent of those stockholders.
Whether or not you choose to believe it, yes, that does happen, though probably not in such a flippant way. I can assure you that LGBT people, like everyone else with any sense, give a great deal of consideration to the quality of life they'll have in a place before moving there. So this matter could very well factor in to a decision to apply for or accept a position.
Good talent is hard to find, and I expect Microsoft wants to remove any unnecessary barriers to getting some very talented people to work for them.
Many people doing exactly the sort of work that the OP seems to want to do find that they are better off and more productive using a somewhat different workflow than what most people trained on DW use. Anyone's mileage may vary, of course, but here's my recommendation, based on quite a few years in that very business:
There is no open source drop-in replacement for DreamWeaver.
In my opinion, this is a good thing, because DreamWeaver is a pretty good code editor, with a mediocre at best 'WYSIWYG' design tool which produces bad (at best) code which I can only recommend for throwaway designs you will never have to change or support. The code produced has gotten MUCH MUCH better than it was a decade ago, but it's still crap I wouldn't want to have to deal with later.
So, I use a real graphic design application to design the appearance. I then use a good code editor to write good, clean, standards compliant code to implement the design. As I code, I view the result frequently in multiple actual browsers, so that what I see is what I will REALLY get, in all its quirky varieties. When the browser looks just like the original comp, we're golden, at least until the requirements change (again, and again).
Some will say that this has the drawback that you have to learn how to write the code. I will submit that HTML, CSS, and Javascript take less time to learn than you would spend fighting with the crud spat out by WYSIWYG tools, and once you've made that time investment, you have more power and flexibility than any code generating tool can provide.
IF you are building one-time only static web pages that will be posted and removed after a while and never looked at again, then by all means use something that makes it easy. If you are going to have to live with the results for a long time, doing it right to begin with pays off over time.
Caveat: I once spent two years during which one of my responsibilities was to maintain and enhance an extensive and very public website which had been 'designed' in DreamWeaver, using some of DW's design time templating capabilities. It took me a while to excise that cancer and heal the scars, but in the end we had a clean, maintainable site with complete fidelity to the original visual design and greatly reduced maintenance and development costs. This has left me with a particular distaste for that tool, so take what I say with that in mind. Also, I use emacs to write Perl code, so I may be skewed in general.
Re:Lamar Smith still needs to lose his job over th
on
House Kills SOPA
·
· Score: 2
Sounds good to me, but as a resident of Texas I can assure you that the Republicans have the congressional districts quite thoroughly gerrymandered to prevent any opposition to the Will of the The Party from succeeding.
The method by which this works is that both houses of the congress must pass the same language in a bill. Often there are two separate bills to begin with (PIPA and SOPA in this case) and if both pass, the two houses form a committee to work out the differences. If they change both bills, both houses must pass the revised language, or if they adopt one or the other bill intact, then only the house that has not passed that one must pass it.
After getting through all of this, the bill must be signed into law by the President, or allowed to pass into law without a signature after a given period of time, or the president may veto the bill, in which case Congress may override the veto if they have sufficient votes to do so.
So, the situation now appears to be that one house has ceased work on this matter. The other, the Senate, is still working on it. If they pass PIPA, it may be taken up by the House of Representatives and sent to the President. It's a tall order, but it could happen.
...a flaming asshole with a working system I can demonstrate to my non-techie friends without leaving them scratching their heads.
You'll understand, someday, when you're "the smart one" out of all of your friends and family and they're always bugging you because their Windows systems are crashing and running slow.
I've converted 5 hopeless non-techies and some of their parents already, and they kiss my feet on a daily basis for it.
After years of attempting to convert friends and family to use linux and trying to support their linux (rarely) and/or windows (often) systems, I am now smart enough to tell people to use whatever they want and to get tech support from the company they bought the system and/or software from. Except my wife, who laughs at me when I say that and makes me fix her stupid windows laptop anyway.
All that aside, I'm enjoying the ideas here, as I am constantly tinkering with my (main) system (currently xubuntu oneiric with xfce, razor-qt, openbox, e17, and kde4 available as options in lightdm). The tinkering is as much fun to me as the using, so I'm happy.
I really don't think there's a problem with telling companies what we would like for their products to do. Whether they meet those requests or not is up to them, and we, the consumers, will either purchase or not purchase their products in response.
Squeaky wheel gets the grease, and all that jazz, you know?
Yep, there's The Hobbit (of course) and The Silmarillion, and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and The Children of Hurin, and The Unfinished Tales, and The History of Middle Earth (12 volumes).
That should keep you busy for a longer cycle than 18 months before starting over.
You don't need a placebo for this sort of trial, you have the rest of humanity acting as the control group.
We aren't concerned with "does it feel better" placebo effects here, we're talking about do you or do you not have HIV virii in you, which is measurable.
1. Define proven safe for 2 year olds. Cough medicine was proven safe for 2 year olds. It wasn't until one mother refused to accept a diagnosis of SIDS that it was discovered that some children had not developed the ability to metabolise certain compounds.
In other words, we often know what is safe for most 2 year olds, but not all.
Point taken, but sometimes we have to go with what we know and change it when we learn more. Actually, that applies pretty much all the time. With that said, I'm not opposed to a prudent level of caution. Just opposed to failing to take action because somebody is afraid without evidence to back it up - which happens a lot. A compromise between acting on imperfect knowledge and analysis paralysis has to happen.
2. Yes, blood transfusions, and toddler drug parties. Just to name a few.
Just making sure - the "kids can't get HIV, they don't have sex" argument is common among people who don't realize there are other vectors. Having raised three children, I feel confident in stating that they will find ways to bleed on each other that adults never imagined.
3. We're not asking for personal freedom without consequence. We're just asking that our toddlers be allowed to attend pre-school without being required to have STD vaccines.
See above. HIV is NOT only a STD.
To elaborate and clarify, I am not suggesting that if the vaccine proves effective, we must immediately begin inoculating 2 year olds. However, eradicating the virus may be best achieved by mass vaccination at an early age, much as was done with other devastating diseases. I myself carry a small scar from my smallpox vaccination, which my children did not have to have, thanks to mass vaccination. Whether that's the course to follow for HIV I will leave to far more knowledgeable folks. I just won't complain if that's the course they pick.
All in all, you seem like a prudent parent. I just think it's a good idea to follow the advice of the experts in most cases. It's usually the safest bet. Never 100% safe, but life doesn't give us many 100% sure things.
And to bring this back to reality, I haven't heard anyone, anywhere suggesting mass vaccinating toddlers with HIV vaccines. IF the vaccine is effective, and IF it will give my (not so distant) future grandchildren a life free from even the outside chance of contracting that nasty virus, I would be first in line to take them to the doc for the shot.
1. If it's proven safe for 2 year olds and prevents them from acquiring HIV infection, why the hell not?
2. There are a whole lot of other ways to get infected besides sex.
3. Personal freedom without consequence to other people is a lie that unscrupulous politicians and for-profit demagogues tell to get what they want from the credulous.
(3b. Social engineering without consequence to personal freedom is also a lie that a different set of unscrupulous politicians and for-profit demagogues tell to get what they want from the credulous.)
That makes sense too, given that there's really no distinction between University research and corporate R&D. The ethics of that situation is another topic altogether.
Hmm. I suppose then the FDA regulates the export of the vaccine for use in trials, rather than regulating the research of scientists in another country. That makes sense.
I wonder how resistant these cameras would be to a high powered air rifle firing pellets designed for hunting small pests. I'm pretty sure they qualify as pests.
Slashdot Mirror
If everyone uses it, it isn't suspicious.
I feel really sorry for my FBI "guardian angel". Must be really boring.
In other news, "The Government" is well known to be incompetent, so does that make me safe from their interference with my evil plots?
I get equal amusement from listening to people who believe "The Government" is either all powerful or all powerless. It's just people, doing whatever they think their job entails, or sometimes trying to enrich or empower themselves in more or less ethical ways. Or just hanging on until retirement. Or in the case of elected politicians, doing and saying whatever they think is most likely to get them re-elected, and to hell with understanding the issues.
I understand and to some degree agree with your point. However, the primary concern leading various entities to try to restrict the use of the internet is with people distributing copies, whether for free or for money, not with people making copies. If you make a copy and keep it to yourself, the internet is probably not involved.
I do know that some IP "owners" have a desire to keep you from even making copies for yourself, but that's another issue altogether, and one on which my opinions are less conflicted.
You may be right, but I wasn't confused by the ambiguity. Anyone who was confused by it, raise your hand...
Another poster has reported that the button doesn't work in Firefox. Try a different browser. (And maybe report the bug to the site developers?)
Please, please, tell me who these new uncorrupted politicians are, where I can find them, and how I can support them. I want them on my ballot, ASAP. I have never seen any there.
The money doesn't go into the politician's personal bank account. Instead, it is used to help the politician retain or increase personal political power, which is the currency that means something to politicians. They are there because they want power, not money. Money is simply a tool to gain power, and campaign money is better than personal money for that, anyway. Most of these politicians don't need any more personal money, but they drool over more power.
This is why in my opinion lobbying (as designed, not as practiced) is fine but campaign finance by donation will destroy the nation, eventually. Especially now that corporation officers can use stockholders' money to buy politicians, without the consent of those stockholders.
Whether or not you choose to believe it, yes, that does happen, though probably not in such a flippant way. I can assure you that LGBT people, like everyone else with any sense, give a great deal of consideration to the quality of life they'll have in a place before moving there. So this matter could very well factor in to a decision to apply for or accept a position.
Good talent is hard to find, and I expect Microsoft wants to remove any unnecessary barriers to getting some very talented people to work for them.
Trust me, a low UID does not make you smart.
Who is this "we" doing all this saving?
You are correct, however...
Many people doing exactly the sort of work that the OP seems to want to do find that they are better off and more productive using a somewhat different workflow than what most people trained on DW use. Anyone's mileage may vary, of course, but here's my recommendation, based on quite a few years in that very business:
There is no open source drop-in replacement for DreamWeaver.
In my opinion, this is a good thing, because DreamWeaver is a pretty good code editor, with a mediocre at best 'WYSIWYG' design tool which produces bad (at best) code which I can only recommend for throwaway designs you will never have to change or support. The code produced has gotten MUCH MUCH better than it was a decade ago, but it's still crap I wouldn't want to have to deal with later.
So, I use a real graphic design application to design the appearance. I then use a good code editor to write good, clean, standards compliant code to implement the design. As I code, I view the result frequently in multiple actual browsers, so that what I see is what I will REALLY get, in all its quirky varieties. When the browser looks just like the original comp, we're golden, at least until the requirements change (again, and again).
Some will say that this has the drawback that you have to learn how to write the code. I will submit that HTML, CSS, and Javascript take less time to learn than you would spend fighting with the crud spat out by WYSIWYG tools, and once you've made that time investment, you have more power and flexibility than any code generating tool can provide.
IF you are building one-time only static web pages that will be posted and removed after a while and never looked at again, then by all means use something that makes it easy. If you are going to have to live with the results for a long time, doing it right to begin with pays off over time.
Caveat: I once spent two years during which one of my responsibilities was to maintain and enhance an extensive and very public website which had been 'designed' in DreamWeaver, using some of DW's design time templating capabilities. It took me a while to excise that cancer and heal the scars, but in the end we had a clean, maintainable site with complete fidelity to the original visual design and greatly reduced maintenance and development costs. This has left me with a particular distaste for that tool, so take what I say with that in mind. Also, I use emacs to write Perl code, so I may be skewed in general.
Sounds good to me, but as a resident of Texas I can assure you that the Republicans have the congressional districts quite thoroughly gerrymandered to prevent any opposition to the Will of the The Party from succeeding.
The method by which this works is that both houses of the congress must pass the same language in a bill. Often there are two separate bills to begin with (PIPA and SOPA in this case) and if both pass, the two houses form a committee to work out the differences. If they change both bills, both houses must pass the revised language, or if they adopt one or the other bill intact, then only the house that has not passed that one must pass it.
After getting through all of this, the bill must be signed into law by the President, or allowed to pass into law without a signature after a given period of time, or the president may veto the bill, in which case Congress may override the veto if they have sufficient votes to do so.
So, the situation now appears to be that one house has ceased work on this matter. The other, the Senate, is still working on it. If they pass PIPA, it may be taken up by the House of Representatives and sent to the President. It's a tall order, but it could happen.
It ain't over, in other words.
The other years are ALSO the year of failed predictions and prophecies. It's an annual cycle, see?
...a flaming asshole with a working system I can demonstrate to my non-techie friends without leaving them scratching their heads.
You'll understand, someday, when you're "the smart one" out of all of your friends and family and they're always bugging you because their Windows systems are crashing and running slow.
I've converted 5 hopeless non-techies and some of their parents already, and they kiss my feet on a daily basis for it.
After years of attempting to convert friends and family to use linux and trying to support their linux (rarely) and/or windows (often) systems, I am now smart enough to tell people to use whatever they want and to get tech support from the company they bought the system and/or software from. Except my wife, who laughs at me when I say that and makes me fix her stupid windows laptop anyway.
All that aside, I'm enjoying the ideas here, as I am constantly tinkering with my (main) system (currently xubuntu oneiric with xfce, razor-qt, openbox, e17, and kde4 available as options in lightdm). The tinkering is as much fun to me as the using, so I'm happy.
I really don't think there's a problem with telling companies what we would like for their products to do. Whether they meet those requests or not is up to them, and we, the consumers, will either purchase or not purchase their products in response.
Squeaky wheel gets the grease, and all that jazz, you know?
Yep, there's The Hobbit (of course) and The Silmarillion, and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and The Children of Hurin, and The Unfinished Tales, and The History of Middle Earth (12 volumes).
That should keep you busy for a longer cycle than 18 months before starting over.
You don't need a placebo for this sort of trial, you have the rest of humanity acting as the control group.
We aren't concerned with "does it feel better" placebo effects here, we're talking about do you or do you not have HIV virii in you, which is measurable.
1. Define proven safe for 2 year olds. Cough medicine was proven safe for 2 year olds. It wasn't until one mother refused to accept a diagnosis of SIDS that it was discovered that some children had not developed the ability to metabolise certain compounds.
In other words, we often know what is safe for most 2 year olds, but not all.
Point taken, but sometimes we have to go with what we know and change it when we learn more. Actually, that applies pretty much all the time. With that said, I'm not opposed to a prudent level of caution. Just opposed to failing to take action because somebody is afraid without evidence to back it up - which happens a lot. A compromise between acting on imperfect knowledge and analysis paralysis has to happen.
2. Yes, blood transfusions, and toddler drug parties. Just to name a few.
Just making sure - the "kids can't get HIV, they don't have sex" argument is common among people who don't realize there are other vectors. Having raised three children, I feel confident in stating that they will find ways to bleed on each other that adults never imagined.
3. We're not asking for personal freedom without consequence. We're just asking that our toddlers be allowed to attend pre-school without being required to have STD vaccines.
See above. HIV is NOT only a STD.
To elaborate and clarify, I am not suggesting that if the vaccine proves effective, we must immediately begin inoculating 2 year olds. However, eradicating the virus may be best achieved by mass vaccination at an early age, much as was done with other devastating diseases. I myself carry a small scar from my smallpox vaccination, which my children did not have to have, thanks to mass vaccination. Whether that's the course to follow for HIV I will leave to far more knowledgeable folks. I just won't complain if that's the course they pick.
All in all, you seem like a prudent parent. I just think it's a good idea to follow the advice of the experts in most cases. It's usually the safest bet. Never 100% safe, but life doesn't give us many 100% sure things.
And to bring this back to reality, I haven't heard anyone, anywhere suggesting mass vaccinating toddlers with HIV vaccines. IF the vaccine is effective, and IF it will give my (not so distant) future grandchildren a life free from even the outside chance of contracting that nasty virus, I would be first in line to take them to the doc for the shot.
1. If it's proven safe for 2 year olds and prevents them from acquiring HIV infection, why the hell not?
2. There are a whole lot of other ways to get infected besides sex.
3. Personal freedom without consequence to other people is a lie that unscrupulous politicians and for-profit demagogues tell to get what they want from the credulous.
(3b. Social engineering without consequence to personal freedom is also a lie that a different set of unscrupulous politicians and for-profit demagogues tell to get what they want from the credulous.)
That makes sense too, given that there's really no distinction between University research and corporate R&D. The ethics of that situation is another topic altogether.
Hmm. I suppose then the FDA regulates the export of the vaccine for use in trials, rather than regulating the research of scientists in another country. That makes sense.
Why does a Canadian University need approval from the U.S. FDA?
I wonder how resistant these cameras would be to a high powered air rifle firing pellets designed for hunting small pests. I'm pretty sure they qualify as pests.
In Uhmurrica we live the Ferengi Dream.
"You don't understand. Ferengi workers don't want to stop the exploitation, we want to find a way to become the exploiters." - Rom