What tiny keyboard? I've never owned a Mac with a "tiny keyboard". I assume you're talking about the old Apple keyboard that didn't include the insert-home-end-delete-pageup-pagedown block. That keyboard was an option something like fifteen years ago, so I can only assume that you're arguing from an ignorance of the current hardware.
I chose a different mouse that suits my needs. Apple didn't come to my house and take it away. I still maintain that the one-button default mouse is Good Design. You disagree, and that's fine.
I was willing to accept that you might have a vague idea what you're talking about until your last sentence.
If you can figure out how to make the bad guys stop doing weapons research, let me know. If you think there are not bad guys, I suggest you consult a mental health professional as you're obviously off your nut.
I don't even know why I bother, but my Mac has a spectacular keyboard and a four-button programmable mouse. Both have served me well for ten years.
But hey! Don't let me get in the way of your prejudices. I hope you make the most of them.
The new Apple keyboards are great, as well. And as far as the mouse? Jesus, get a USB Intellimouse and quit crying. The one button mouse is an EXCELLENT example of user-focused design.
More to the point, an OS that is designed to use a one-button mouse is an excellent example of user-focused design.
That's precisely my point. Anybody who defines quality as "Lots of people like this" are just as short sighted as the ones who define quality as "Nobody else knows about this". Both are wrong.
No, they're writing insightful and well-thought-out posts like the one you replied to.
Of course, there are also a lot of stupid posts. There are a lot of stupid books too. Sturgeon's Law: 95% of everything is crap.
I think my grandparent is on to a very important idea. Writing a coherent statement or argument is a better expression of literacy than reading someone else's.
I won't compromise one set of liberties for another. Therefore, my vote will never, ever be meaningful unless and until the two party system is abolished.
Everything else is business as usual in Washington. I don't care that Lieberman is suing to repeal the Patriot act, as he's also spearheading the destruction of my fair use rights.
Read this carefully: ALL LIBERTIES ARE IMPORTANT TO ME. The candidate that understands that will get my vote. Unfortunately, candidates that understand that don't get nominated by the two parties.
Every novel I studied in high school was ruined by the process. I still read upwards of 500 pages a week of pleasurable literature (above and beyond what's necessary for my professional and academic pursuits).
So I'm not an average American. Most people aren't. So what?
Intercepting THEIR messages and blocking THEIR actions is fine.
However, since THEY don't wear signs, there is no way to impede them without unacceptable restrictions being placed on ordinary citizens.
So. You get the terrorists to wear signs, and I'll let you do whatever you want to to them. Until then, we'll extend Constitutionally protected liberties to absolutely everyone. If you read it carefully, you'll note that it does not give rights to citizens, but enjoins the government from restricting the rights of People. Yes, that means that even people who aren't citizens are entitled to due process of law.
Never mind cost. How about getting decent quality for my hardcover book buying dollar?
The edition of _The Confusion_ I checked out from the library is falling apart from the crappy glued binding. My copy of _Cryptonomicon_ is doing the same thing. I've got half a shelf full of hardback books that I read frequently, and many of them have folios falling out of them.
I would love to demand higher quality for my $26. But each publisher has a monopoly on a given title, and I don't have that option. So, I'd rather buy a good ebook reader, and buy an electronic copy. Oh wait, there aren't good ebook readers, and lots of ebooks cost as much as the hardcover editions too.
The only platform the Democrats support unanimously is getting rid of Bush, and they'll say anything to do it. I haven't seen them make an argument from principle against the infringement of civil liberties. Their stance is coincidental, not principled.
Now, there's a good case to be made that the Republicans are doing the same thing: They're toeing the party line, doing what they're told.
So, here we go again: The parties are pretty similar. Both are bankrupt of principles. Both change their stances with how the wind (and the money) blow. Both are united in their opposition to anybody who doesn't want to drink one of their two flavors of kool-aid.
It's frick and frack. If I vote for a Republican, I get fewer civil liberties and better economic liberties. If I vote for a Democrat, I get more civil liberties and less economic liberty. I call that a non-choice. I call that unacceptable. I want a government that will stand up for ALL of my liberties.
Idealistic? Sure. Idealists create the world we want to live in. Always have.
Slashdot can't care about anything. It is not a sentient entity. Slashdot is a community. There are lots of people who post here. Those people are (usually) sentient entities whose beliefs are not contingent on their membership in this community. Some of those people are Republicans. Some are Democrats. Some are Fascists. Some are Anarchists. Some (like me) are vehemently opposed to political parties in general. Some support the US Administration, some would like it to go away.
Everybody always thinks that everybody else is biased against them. Everybody is always wrong.
Uh, like voting overwhelmingly for the patriot act in the first place? And the DMCA? And COPA? Golly, I can't think of anything.
Note: I believe that excessive taxation abridges my civil liberties. So, guns and my taxes and the laws the Democrats implement...I think I'm on solid ground.
I mean, good for the Dems for trying to come to their senses on this bit of legislation...but this fight would not have been necessary had the law not been passed in the first place.
It is the OS vendor's responsibility to ensure as much consistent user interface as possible. MS doesn't do this. Apple does. In my experience, the scenario I outlined is the rule, not the exception.
Slashdot Mirror
What tiny keyboard? I've never owned a Mac with a "tiny keyboard". I assume you're talking about the old Apple keyboard that didn't include the insert-home-end-delete-pageup-pagedown block. That keyboard was an option something like fifteen years ago, so I can only assume that you're arguing from an ignorance of the current hardware.
I chose a different mouse that suits my needs. Apple didn't come to my house and take it away. I still maintain that the one-button default mouse is Good Design. You disagree, and that's fine.
I was willing to accept that you might have a vague idea what you're talking about until your last sentence.
If you can figure out how to make the bad guys stop doing weapons research, let me know. If you think there are not bad guys, I suggest you consult a mental health professional as you're obviously off your nut.
I don't even know why I bother, but my Mac has a spectacular keyboard and a four-button programmable mouse. Both have served me well for ten years.
But hey! Don't let me get in the way of your prejudices. I hope you make the most of them.
The new Apple keyboards are great, as well. And as far as the mouse? Jesus, get a USB Intellimouse and quit crying. The one button mouse is an EXCELLENT example of user-focused design.
More to the point, an OS that is designed to use a one-button mouse is an excellent example of user-focused design.
So, if those dumb hayseeds would just learn to read, they'd move to the city with the civilized folk?
Wow. That's a really...enlightened attitude.
Yes...and?
It's what dorks and nerds do.
Geeks, on the other hand, are great fun at parties.
That's precisely my point. Anybody who defines quality as "Lots of people like this" are just as short sighted as the ones who define quality as "Nobody else knows about this". Both are wrong.
I'd expect better critical thinking skills from a PhD candidate.
Since TV viewing hours are going down, and people are reading fewer novels, what do you suppose they're doing?
Maybe interacting with other people, either in real life or on the Internet?
Indie cred? Are there people who really care about that?
Please explain to me why reading a book with "indie cred" is somehow better (or in any way different) from reading something from Oprah's booklist.
Quality and popularity are orthogonal.
No, they're writing insightful and well-thought-out posts like the one you replied to.
Of course, there are also a lot of stupid posts. There are a lot of stupid books too. Sturgeon's Law: 95% of everything is crap.
I think my grandparent is on to a very important idea. Writing a coherent statement or argument is a better expression of literacy than reading someone else's.
You're sidestepping my point.
I won't compromise one set of liberties for another. Therefore, my vote will never, ever be meaningful unless and until the two party system is abolished.
Everything else is business as usual in Washington. I don't care that Lieberman is suing to repeal the Patriot act, as he's also spearheading the destruction of my fair use rights.
Read this carefully: ALL LIBERTIES ARE IMPORTANT TO ME. The candidate that understands that will get my vote. Unfortunately, candidates that understand that don't get nominated by the two parties.
What does "teaching the novel" mean?
Every novel I studied in high school was ruined by the process. I still read upwards of 500 pages a week of pleasurable literature (above and beyond what's necessary for my professional and academic pursuits).
So I'm not an average American. Most people aren't. So what?
Excellent debating tactic. Call your opponent a racist, and they can't really continue the discussion, can they?
Intercepting THEIR messages and blocking THEIR actions is fine.
However, since THEY don't wear signs, there is no way to impede them without unacceptable restrictions being placed on ordinary citizens.
So. You get the terrorists to wear signs, and I'll let you do whatever you want to to them. Until then, we'll extend Constitutionally protected liberties to absolutely everyone. If you read it carefully, you'll note that it does not give rights to citizens, but enjoins the government from restricting the rights of People. Yes, that means that even people who aren't citizens are entitled to due process of law.
No, my desire for good software demands higher standards than yours do. So, there you go. We disagree. Yay! Idea marketplace working at its finest.
I'd even more rather municipalities stop relying on the federal teat and fund their own public works.
Taxes should stay close to the taxpayers to the largest practical degree.
Never mind cost. How about getting decent quality for my hardcover book buying dollar?
The edition of _The Confusion_ I checked out from the library is falling apart from the crappy glued binding. My copy of _Cryptonomicon_ is doing the same thing. I've got half a shelf full of hardback books that I read frequently, and many of them have folios falling out of them.
I would love to demand higher quality for my $26. But each publisher has a monopoly on a given title, and I don't have that option. So, I'd rather buy a good ebook reader, and buy an electronic copy. Oh wait, there aren't good ebook readers, and lots of ebooks cost as much as the hardcover editions too.
Whee. I love monopolies.
You're right. As your .sig says: What was I thinking?
The only platform the Democrats support unanimously is getting rid of Bush, and they'll say anything to do it. I haven't seen them make an argument from principle against the infringement of civil liberties. Their stance is coincidental, not principled.
Now, there's a good case to be made that the Republicans are doing the same thing: They're toeing the party line, doing what they're told.
So, here we go again: The parties are pretty similar. Both are bankrupt of principles. Both change their stances with how the wind (and the money) blow. Both are united in their opposition to anybody who doesn't want to drink one of their two flavors of kool-aid.
It's frick and frack. If I vote for a Republican, I get fewer civil liberties and better economic liberties. If I vote for a Democrat, I get more civil liberties and less economic liberty. I call that a non-choice. I call that unacceptable. I want a government that will stand up for ALL of my liberties.
Idealistic? Sure. Idealists create the world we want to live in. Always have.
Okay, I'm going to try to use small words.
Slashdot can't care about anything. It is not a sentient entity. Slashdot is a community. There are lots of people who post here. Those people are (usually) sentient entities whose beliefs are not contingent on their membership in this community. Some of those people are Republicans. Some are Democrats. Some are Fascists. Some are Anarchists. Some (like me) are vehemently opposed to political parties in general. Some support the US Administration, some would like it to go away.
Everybody always thinks that everybody else is biased against them. Everybody is always wrong.
Uh, like voting overwhelmingly for the patriot act in the first place? And the DMCA? And COPA? Golly, I can't think of anything.
Note: I believe that excessive taxation abridges my civil liberties. So, guns and my taxes and the laws the Democrats implement...I think I'm on solid ground.
I mean, good for the Dems for trying to come to their senses on this bit of legislation...but this fight would not have been necessary had the law not been passed in the first place.
OK, now I'm totally confused.
Who are you talking about exactly?
It is the OS vendor's responsibility to ensure as much consistent user interface as possible. MS doesn't do this. Apple does. In my experience, the scenario I outlined is the rule, not the exception.
No, actually, it's not. I use XP every day. There are a lot of not-bad things about it, but handling multiple users isn't one of those not bad things.
Some installers work OK, many do not. I believe it depends on the version of InstallShield.
Both parties are the same. They defend their own interests, and those of their incumbent leaders, to the detriment of their constituency.
The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is which set of my inalienable rights and civil liberties they want to infringe.