I tried Crossover on OS X and was very disappointed. Sure, Half-life 2 ran...at half the framerate and with DX8 support so everything looked like ass. It was pathetic. Also, if your program isn't on the supported list, don't expect it to run. I'll stick with VMWare and Boot Camp and leave CrossOver out of it. I haven't used VMware for running games, but I have tried Parallels desktop and have had minimal success--that is, even very old games like the 7th Guest don't run horribly well. Is VMware that much better?
And Boot Camp is kinda an entirely different boat.
I don't get it? I mean, UChicago IS a top school, and law schools everywhere are known for a strong reliance on the Socratic method rather than lectures. My own (albeit very limited!) experience at the school mirrors this.
I don't know, maybe I just had really good luck with professors, as I had some absolutely amazing teachers. Then again, I think that in general history professors (which tended to be my favorite) tend to be the best teachers, as opposed to say CompSci, or EE, etc.
No kidding. About 75% of professors seem to think that it's acceptable to waste the students' time by conveying exactly the same information (and NOTHING more) that they could have digested with 10 minutes of reading via a 50 minute lecture.That's not education--that's a complete waste of 40 minutes. Where did you go to school that this is true? At the college level I don't think I had *1* professor that did what you say they all do. Maybe Intro to Econ which had 300 people, but even that class had smaller breakout groups of 10-15 that had discussions, etc.
I'll stop browsing the web and playing Quake in class when professors start giving a shit and actually forming a coherent lecture. Until then, they're the ones wasting my tuition money, not me. Good attitude! REmember, this is UChicago, not Podunk Community college. One would hope that one of the top faculties in the country would give decent lectures!
FWIW, I took one law course at Uchicago (I wasn't a law student, was sitting in) and every single person in the lecture hall had a laptop. The sound of typing was deafening!
I think this is a great example of what the 21st century has in store.
I have a lot of Chinese (national) friends, even one who is a member of the CCP. They definitely take the Tibet protests personally. The CCP has been very clever at manipulating national sentiment on this issue, and it is very interesting to me because it is a clash between the western narrative of China as a brutal oppressor and the eastern narrative of the west as a patronizing colonial force. I very much agree with this. In highschool ~10 years ago, a good friend of mine was of Chinese origin. He had grown up in China until the age of 8, moved to Canada, and then to the US when he was 15.
Despite the fact that the majority of his thinking years were spent in Western countries, he was fiercely pro-Chinese government. He used to get in arguments with anyone that would bring up Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Tibet. Utterly unapologetic, and very much saw Americans/Westerners caring about these places as trying to keep the Chinese government down. He would defend crackdowns and government actions as the price of improving the nation, etc.
On the otherhand, another friend of mine from China had the exact opposite point of view he did. She was in fact VERY anti-Chinese government. Then again, she had vivid memories of hearing gunshots as she was in gradeschool a few blocks from Tianamen square when the protests there went down... I think that's the kind of thing that can change your perspective.
A properly crafted site intended to have a printing option has a stylesheet that has @media print rules for restyling the page for printing, automatically removing that cruft. I'm not sure I've ever actually seen a site that properly implemented this--do you have any links to sites that do the right thing?
I do agree that that's the ideal...however asking for a "properly crafted site" is like asking for no flash and everyone to write conformant html. Every look at google, amazon, etc? Not pretty!
- I don't need links to "print this page" or "email it to a friend". I strongly disagree! Very frequently the "print this page" link remedies many of the problems you listed--gets rid of ads, all on one page, gets rid of navigation cruft, etc.
Also useful if you want to like, print the page;-)
The other day an artiest friend of a friend heard I did some web programming and then equated that with web design. He said he was getting into web design too--he's been learning flash and might eventually get around to HTML. It made me sad.
The GPL is doing no such thing. Apple is limiting developers from licensing any software under the GPL, if said software was created using their SDK. There's nothing on the GPL that prohibits use of GPL-licensed software in any device, whatever the hell the device may be running. All the limitations are on the developers. Apple license or GPL license. Since the conversation has been on the topic of non-developer endusers, I don't think most people really care! However you like to put it, it seems that the iPhone and the GPL are incompatible (put the blame as you will--and in this case, I believe you are mostly right).
Also, BSD software that has been improved and re-released as Proprietary is not "user friendly" because it enables the business practice of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Improvements to BSD software that are not re-released under a free license do not benefit users. That is certainly up for debate. Some would argue that if software everywhere gets better that's good for everyone. Additionally, once BSD software is out there, it's out there. No putting the cat back in the bag.
Thus, I stand by my assertion that GPL is the most "user" friendly license and will let the question of what the most "developer" friendly license is be a debate for another discussion. I still don't feel this is accurate. Look at the very topic of this article--iPhone/GPL incompatibility. The GPL is very probably limiting what software an enduser can use. There are other "edge" cases out there too where GPL software cannot be used in certain environments or in conjunction with other licenses. Though these are primarily developer concerns, I believe they affect endusers as well.
I also should add that I don't particularly care personally about the license wars. I use FreeBSD on my servers over Linux (though the license didn't make one iota of difference in my preference) and XP desktops and a OSX laptop--so I'm going to hell according to either camp;-)
Thanks for the Windows/TCP/IP link, I believe I've seen it before, but it remains an interesting read.
And you assumed that I was talking about people who cared about monetizing the development of a software product. That was addressed in my second paragraph. Or maybe he assumed when you said "use this however you like" you actually meant "use this however you like, as constrained by the GPL license." There's no argument--BSD license has fewer restrictions than GPLv2/GPLv3/LPGL/etc. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another question.
Hell, I think Windows still has some BSD code in it. I think not since 2k/xp--or possibly NT4 (I think you're talking about the TCP/IP stack)--but I don't know for sure.
However,
They need to start banning based on use and patterns. 1400 accounts created from the same IP on the same day? Cat knowledge or no, that's suspicious behavior. 90% of the emails from that gmail account are getting marked as spam on the other end? Send them an email and ask them what's going on. Every single one of their emails is to 1000 recipients, don't pass a spell check on any words at all, send these five or more times a day and they're suspiciously familiar? Block it. What makes you think the spammers aren't using a collection of rotating proxy servers? Or hijacked botnet computers? They are, thus the "1400 accounts from one IP" method can't be used. These guys are sophisticated enough to automate captcha cracking, they are smart enough to avoid easy things like that.
Additionally, I'm sure spam accounts ARE getting shut down pretty much as soon as they're up and running. Just a thousand spammers getting ten thousand email addresses a day (and multiply that several times I would imagine) and you can see the problem.
Gmail/hotmail/etc blocking outbound mail as spam is an interesting idea, and you'd think with the volume of mail they see, they would be able to develop some pretty good heuristics.
And that comes with vista which you will otherwise have to pay for. I'm not sure that's quite the right way of putting it:-P I would pay extra NOT to get Vista after using it on new dell at work recently. Ugh.
It really is a matter of taste. I bought a Macbook Pro about a year ago. After angsting over matte or glossy (my old Powerbook was matte) I asked for matte.
Took it home, opened it up, realized it was glossy. Used it a little bit, and I absolutely couldn't stand it. Returned it for a matte the next day (and the apple store employees practically fought over getting the openbox employee discount..)
I will say the colors and brightness of glossy looks absolutely fantastic, but I just don't like the reflections.
Now, I know it's nice to be able to slam the government and the war in Iraq, but next time it might be helpful and informative to read the article before you comment.
My last reply--thanks for extended conversation--always pleasant when a slashdot conv goes more than a message or two without some terrible name calling or something!
that is why I always say if I was osama. Hence your request for evidence confuses me? What am I trying to prove? That security is expensive? I don't really know what you're trying to prove, and my point about your statement is that "if I was osama" is basically irrelevant--you're not; your ideals, goals, and ideas of terror don't match up with him at all (that's a good thing!).
So I take it as when you say something like "I bet UBL is cackling about western civil liberties allegedly being eroded!" I'm saying that doesn't make any sense. YOU might be cackling if YOU were the head of a terrorist organization, but UBL almost certainly is not!
You are still hung up on the notion of what osama really believes, which in a previous post we have both ruled out as irrelevant. No, I said what was irrelevant was "Now whether or not osama really knows"
I also, again, disagree wholeheartedly with everything you say in the rest of your post. You're not Osama, and you don't understand his motivations or wants in the slightest (nor have you been able to demonstrate one _single_ piece of evidence to back up your viewpoints), ergo, your statement that "these are the victories I would be celebrating" is just as irrelevant!
Maybe I should attempt to coin a new Godwin's law--the first time someone claims that "this is what the terrorists want!" breaks the rule:p
Anyway, at this point we're just talking past each other, but, cheers!
Against password protecting accounts? What does he plan to use, skeleton keys? Information wants to be free, remember? I believe the GP is referring to "the early days" when RMS encouraged everyone to use the same password so everybody could logon as anybody. No privacy, no problem.
(Note, not saying I agree at all or advocate this!)
Sorry if I was rude earlier, you turned out to be more reasonable than I had assumed. Thank you, always nice to hear;-)
2. Yes and no, naturally he does have specific goals (I doubt anyone thinks he is a terrorist for fun) his way of achieving those is thru terrorism, which is to "inspire terror" in a population so as to achieve their aim - (this is where I get the notion that its a way of messing with your head). I see where you're coming from. I just don't think UBL's conception of "inspiring terror" is letting a boss read an employees email.
Why do you feel that OBL deserves any more credibility than any other politician/cult of personality? It's not a question of credibility, it's one of action. UBL fought in Afghanistan. He heads a terrorist organization--and has spent millions of his own money--financing attacks in Africa, Iraq, the Gulf, and yes, in America too.
I mean, this IS a guy who has repeatedly worked WITH and even FOR the interests of the USA, whose people were trained on our dime and by our people. Actually, his whole organization was funded by supposed anti-drug money brokered by the Bush family. Repeatedly?
UBL fought the Russians in Afghanistan as a mujahideen. At that time, the interests of the mujahideen and America coincided. We sent them weapons. After Afghanistan, UBL was ambivalent about America, and it was the entrance of Western (specifically American) troops into the Arabian peninsula the sealed the deal making him target us as a prime enemy of Islam. Your claims that he worked "WITH" or "FOR" the US are not in the slightest accurate. Please detail how the Bush family single-handedly funded al-Qaeda.
Look how quick they killed Saddam, he had some truly cogent views even if he was responsible for attempted genocide, and they killed him as quick as they could and made him look like crap in order to discredit his ideas - because he really did have a lot of honest, true things to say about what is wrong with the USA. The real reason Bush cares about OBL is that his family has been doing business with them for years and letting that information out isn't part of the plan. Ah yes, the ever conspiratorial they. In answer to your question of how quickly he was killed, Saddam was captured in December of 2003. He was executed--after a public trial--THREE YEARS later. Wow, that conspiratorial they really rushed him to his grave!
The GP mistakenly thought I was claiming he sympathized with UBL--I wasn't. You on the otherhand do seem sympathetic towards Saddam? They "made him look like crap." He was just a dissident with a lot of "honest, true things to say about what is wrong with the USA" even if he was SLIGHTLY responsible for "attempted genocide."
Seriously, what a joke. Saddam was a dictator--a GENOCIDAL dictator who killed millions of his own citizens and started two major wars in which millions more died.
He wasn't executed by the Iraqi Government because he had some hurtful things to say about the US, he was executed because he was a murderous tyrant.
At this point it's barely worth talking to you, but please, if you can actually muster it together, explain how the REAL reason (ignoring oh, the embassy attacks, 90s WTC attack, 9/11 WTC/pentagon attack, and the USS Cole) Bush cares about UBL is.. whatever you're claiming it is.
Its not so much that he cares about civil liberties, champ (can I call you champ?) You certaintly may, though I'm not sure why you would!! (out of curiosity--why would you?)
its that he is a terrorist, and his main job is screw with your head. Ok, I completely disagree with this. His "main job" is not to "screw with" anybodies head--he has a series of discrete and explicit goals that he has repeatedly laid out. These include Western troops out of the Arabian peninsula. In fact this was one of his earliest causes and the one that made him target the US in particular.Troops out of Iraq is another one. Similar motivations took him to Afghanistan to fight the Russians out of an Islamic country. Etc. The key thing you should get out of this is that he isn't just playing at being a terrorist for the heck of it, and he doesn't get some perverse pleasure out of mindgames with Joe Sixpack American, he has goals.
When people are willing to be inconvenienced, champ, for the sake of protection from terrorism - he has succeeded for he has made an negative impact on your life. The problem with this, is that your underlying premise is 100% false.
Additionally, if acts that protect from terrorism WORK (and I'm not going to assume that they do...but let's just say if) then guess what--he's been stopped from doing what he's been trying to do (that is, terrorist actions).
Now whether or not osama really knows or cares about this is largely irrelevant. The first thing you've said I agree with--it IS totally irrelevant!
P.S. I'm not sure what sort of intellectual masturbation led you to assume I empathise with osama but rest assured that its wrong. Apologies if you're not a native English speaker and have misunderstood what I meant--I didn't mean to imply anything like you seem to think I did. The OED definition of empathy is "The power of projecting one's personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation" and to empathize is to do this. In simpler terms, it's putting yourself in someone else's shoes, or seeing the world from their eyes.
So, when I said "I think the fact that that's how you are able to empathize with him" what was meant was that when you try to understand UBL's actions from his point of view, you get something totally off base which doesn't fit with anything UBL/AQ/any other Islamist terrorist group has ever said. Or, in my opinion, you've failed to understand his actions at all.
I think the word you thought I said was "sympathize"
Wow, so within the span of two posts you go from
I Enjoy living in Canada for a reason. They don't do that here... my boss is not allowed to do this. to:
It's okay to be snooping in on certain emails That seems to be a direct contradiction!
in the first case you are standing around looking at his work - in the second you install a video camera to secretly observer him. People are very uncomfortable with the second scenario - they feel violated. That's why companies shouldn't be permitted to do it. Interesting--the building I work in has two security cameras (we've had multiple breakins and the boss can pull up the images on his phone if the alarm system triggers).
We've never had a single employee complain that there are two internal cameras. Not one person has mentioned. Perhaps you are assuming that more people feel "violated" by cameras than actually are?
Companies don't have rights, people do. So entrepreneurs lose their rights because they are being gasp dirty capitalists? If you want to go down the path of enumerating each and every right, what about the boss' "right" to get maximum efficiency from their workers. Anyone can make up stupid rights...
Like many others have said--company email address, company time, no expectation of privacy. Personal email address--expectation of privacy. End of story.
Slashdot Mirror
And Boot Camp is kinda an entirely different boat.
That sucks... I'd be posting on slashdot too! :-P
I don't get it? I mean, UChicago IS a top school, and law schools everywhere are known for a strong reliance on the Socratic method rather than lectures. My own (albeit very limited!) experience at the school mirrors this.
I don't know, maybe I just had really good luck with professors, as I had some absolutely amazing teachers. Then again, I think that in general history professors (which tended to be my favorite) tend to be the best teachers, as opposed to say CompSci, or EE, etc.
FWIW, I took one law course at Uchicago (I wasn't a law student, was sitting in) and every single person in the lecture hall had a laptop. The sound of typing was deafening!
I have a lot of Chinese (national) friends, even one who is a member of the CCP. They definitely take the Tibet protests personally. The CCP has been very clever at manipulating national sentiment on this issue, and it is very interesting to me because it is a clash between the western narrative of China as a brutal oppressor and the eastern narrative of the west as a patronizing colonial force. I very much agree with this. In highschool ~10 years ago, a good friend of mine was of Chinese origin. He had grown up in China until the age of 8, moved to Canada, and then to the US when he was 15.
Despite the fact that the majority of his thinking years were spent in Western countries, he was fiercely pro-Chinese government. He used to get in arguments with anyone that would bring up Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Tibet. Utterly unapologetic, and very much saw Americans/Westerners caring about these places as trying to keep the Chinese government down. He would defend crackdowns and government actions as the price of improving the nation, etc.
On the otherhand, another friend of mine from China had the exact opposite point of view he did. She was in fact VERY anti-Chinese government. Then again, she had vivid memories of hearing gunshots as she was in gradeschool a few blocks from Tianamen square when the protests there went down... I think that's the kind of thing that can change your perspective.
I do agree that that's the ideal...however asking for a "properly crafted site" is like asking for no flash and everyone to write conformant html. Every look at google, amazon, etc? Not pretty!
Also useful if you want to like, print the page
The other day an artiest friend of a friend heard I did some web programming and then equated that with web design. He said he was getting into web design too--he's been learning flash and might eventually get around to HTML. It made me sad.
Again, we're just talking about endusers..
I also should add that I don't particularly care personally about the license wars. I use FreeBSD on my servers over Linux (though the license didn't make one iota of difference in my preference) and XP desktops and a OSX laptop--so I'm going to hell according to either camp
Thanks for the Windows/TCP/IP link, I believe I've seen it before, but it remains an interesting read.
However, They need to start banning based on use and patterns. 1400 accounts created from the same IP on the same day? Cat knowledge or no, that's suspicious behavior. 90% of the emails from that gmail account are getting marked as spam on the other end? Send them an email and ask them what's going on. Every single one of their emails is to 1000 recipients, don't pass a spell check on any words at all, send these five or more times a day and they're suspiciously familiar? Block it. What makes you think the spammers aren't using a collection of rotating proxy servers? Or hijacked botnet computers? They are, thus the "1400 accounts from one IP" method can't be used. These guys are sophisticated enough to automate captcha cracking, they are smart enough to avoid easy things like that.
Additionally, I'm sure spam accounts ARE getting shut down pretty much as soon as they're up and running. Just a thousand spammers getting ten thousand email addresses a day (and multiply that several times I would imagine) and you can see the problem.
Gmail/hotmail/etc blocking outbound mail as spam is an interesting idea, and you'd think with the volume of mail they see, they would be able to develop some pretty good heuristics.
I use the touchpad almost entirely exclusively (unless I'm doing something like photoshop, quark, etc)
two finger scroll, tap click, vertical+horizontal scrolls. Very nice. Haven't used the new multitouch ones either.
It really is a matter of taste. I bought a Macbook Pro about a year ago. After angsting over matte or glossy (my old Powerbook was matte) I asked for matte.
Took it home, opened it up, realized it was glossy. Used it a little bit, and I absolutely couldn't stand it. Returned it for a matte the next day (and the apple store employees practically fought over getting the openbox employee discount..)
I will say the colors and brightness of glossy looks absolutely fantastic, but I just don't like the reflections.
Now, I know it's nice to be able to slam the government and the war in Iraq, but next time it might be helpful and informative to read the article before you comment.
I would provide the link, but, well, RTFA.
So I take it as when you say something like "I bet UBL is cackling about western civil liberties allegedly being eroded!" I'm saying that doesn't make any sense. YOU might be cackling if YOU were the head of a terrorist organization, but UBL almost certainly is not!
I also, again, disagree wholeheartedly with everything you say in the rest of your post. You're not Osama, and you don't understand his motivations or wants in the slightest (nor have you been able to demonstrate one _single_ piece of evidence to back up your viewpoints), ergo, your statement that "these are the victories I would be celebrating" is just as irrelevant!
Maybe I should attempt to coin a new Godwin's law--the first time someone claims that "this is what the terrorists want!" breaks the rule
Anyway, at this point we're just talking past each other, but, cheers!
(Note, not saying I agree at all or advocate this!)
UBL fought the Russians in Afghanistan as a mujahideen. At that time, the interests of the mujahideen and America coincided. We sent them weapons. After Afghanistan, UBL was ambivalent about America, and it was the entrance of Western (specifically American) troops into the Arabian peninsula the sealed the deal making him target us as a prime enemy of Islam. Your claims that he worked "WITH" or "FOR" the US are not in the slightest accurate. Please detail how the Bush family single-handedly funded al-Qaeda. Look how quick they killed Saddam, he had some truly cogent views even if he was responsible for attempted genocide, and they killed him as quick as they could and made him look like crap in order to discredit his ideas - because he really did have a lot of honest, true things to say about what is wrong with the USA. The real reason Bush cares about OBL is that his family has been doing business with them for years and letting that information out isn't part of the plan. Ah yes, the ever conspiratorial they. In answer to your question of how quickly he was killed, Saddam was captured in December of 2003. He was executed--after a public trial--THREE YEARS later. Wow, that conspiratorial they really rushed him to his grave!
The GP mistakenly thought I was claiming he sympathized with UBL--I wasn't. You on the otherhand do seem sympathetic towards Saddam? They "made him look like crap." He was just a dissident with a lot of "honest, true things to say about what is wrong with the USA" even if he was SLIGHTLY responsible for "attempted genocide."
Seriously, what a joke. Saddam was a dictator--a GENOCIDAL dictator who killed millions of his own citizens and started two major wars in which millions more died.
He wasn't executed by the Iraqi Government because he had some hurtful things to say about the US, he was executed because he was a murderous tyrant.
At this point it's barely worth talking to you, but please, if you can actually muster it together, explain how the REAL reason (ignoring oh, the embassy attacks, 90s WTC attack, 9/11 WTC/pentagon attack, and the USS Cole) Bush cares about UBL is
Sigh.
Additionally, if acts that protect from terrorism WORK (and I'm not going to assume that they do...but let's just say if) then guess what--he's been stopped from doing what he's been trying to do (that is, terrorist actions). Now whether or not osama really knows or cares about this is largely irrelevant. The first thing you've said I agree with--it IS totally irrelevant! P.S. I'm not sure what sort of intellectual masturbation led you to assume I empathise with osama but rest assured that its wrong. Apologies if you're not a native English speaker and have misunderstood what I meant--I didn't mean to imply anything like you seem to think I did. The OED definition of empathy is "The power of projecting one's personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation" and to empathize is to do this. In simpler terms, it's putting yourself in someone else's shoes, or seeing the world from their eyes.
So, when I said "I think the fact that that's how you are able to empathize with him" what was meant was that when you try to understand UBL's actions from his point of view, you get something totally off base which doesn't fit with anything UBL/AQ/any other Islamist terrorist group has ever said. Or, in my opinion, you've failed to understand his actions at all.
I think the word you thought I said was "sympathize"
We've never had a single employee complain that there are two internal cameras. Not one person has mentioned. Perhaps you are assuming that more people feel "violated" by cameras than actually are? Companies don't have rights, people do. So entrepreneurs lose their rights because they are being gasp dirty capitalists? If you want to go down the path of enumerating each and every right, what about the boss' "right" to get maximum efficiency from their workers. Anyone can make up stupid rights...
Like many others have said--company email address, company time, no expectation of privacy. Personal email address--expectation of privacy. End of story.