In other words, "if you make the government pay for it, people will complain about raising taxes" is a feature, not a bug. That's the point--the government should make it obvious that it is taking the money, so the public can decide whether it's really worth it. And sometimes they won't.
The likely outcome of leaving a mostly able-bodied populace to decide whether providing transportation to the disabled is "worth it" is precisely why such matters are and should be handled by the government which, ostensibly, promotes the common good.
Many geeks lack the social awareness to distinguish genuine feelings from emotional subterfuge, aka friendship vs. politicking.
Non-technical managers (and other "bosses", including PMs) often manipulate naive techies into sacrificing their personal lives for absurdly low pay and frivolities like ping pong and soda pop. Additionally, many geeks don't have deep and extensive social networks (aka friends and significant others) and so often don't have much incentive to value their own personal lives over work.
Now Google, Khan Academy, and other would-be Masters of the Univese are formalizing the cultivation of "grit" among undersocialized nerds, giving them certificates and free Internet access in the process?
I hope some of these young geeks will think about what this "grit" metric really means and look the executives right in the eye and tell them "You can kiss my grits!"
The first question that comes to my mind is, "What the fuck is the point of 2 Gbps service for residential customers?"
Your question is limited to existing technologies and platforms that are built around the assumption of 12/3Mbps connections at best.
Imagine a respectable percentage (or large enough market) where the network was reliably 2Gbps or more.
If the latency were low enough, there'd be less reason not to share multiple GB files on remote drives for editing locally, like agencies using Photoshop files between 700MB and 1GB large.
Hi quality VR conferencing might materialize if the machines connected to each other could exchange data at rates that today are considered too fast to do anything with.
Or what about existing or yet-to-exist distributed networks that might benefit from truly massive throughput? What would be possible with faster interconnectivity across great physical distances? Say 10Gbps. 100Gbps? 1Tbps? 2Exa bps?
Sure, none of those speeds even mean anything today let alone would be feasible in the current market, but hopefully you get my point, which is that the as-yet uncreated future technologies that would evolve and flourish under much faster and reliable Internet throughput can't be known in advance.
And like any resource rich ecosystem, you can bet that once those resources are there, someone and something will use them.
Yeah it'll be used for higher fidelity porn, more unwanted spam, and larger cat videos. But such a network will also be used for cool things like better medicine, more accurate physics, and more efficient manufacturing, in addition to stuff we can't know about yet.
Stop holding back the future by asking for comparisons from today.
not baseless insult. an objective description of the quality of your thought
what you wrote is hilariously solidly wrong. you blindly and blatantly deny basic facts of a subject matter you inject your puerile ignorance into
you're deluded uneducated wackjob and if you had any shame you would stop lying and making yourself look like a feeble crackpot to anyone who actually understands the simple basics of this subject matter
just shut the fuck up about what you clearly do not understand you dumb ignorant fuck
If the authorities already know about a bomb that is going to be phone detonated, they will have caught the terrorists already, or the FBI has probably set up some patsy to try it.
If an event like this happens after an emergency (like a second bomb after a first bombing), almost all cell phone lines go down automatically because everyone tries to call or message loved ones and clog the system up already.
Not going post 10 obvious work arounds because I will wind up on some watch list.
The great thing about parallel construction is that everyone is always already on a watch list.
Your post is modded "Insightful", but if I could, I would mod it "Dangerously Insightful". If women en masse knew that they could manipulate most men with a sweet smile and some relevant conversation, many of us would be doomed.
It cuts both (multiple) ways.
If $person1 is aware of sexual attraction on the part of $person2, it would not be too difficult for $person1 to manipulate $person2.
This is why it's important to behave respectfully, thoughtfully, and openly when dealing with other people. Men, women, what-have-you.
Actually they can still have booth babes they just need to look professional. Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.
I know you mean well, but you're completely missing the point.
they post snarky comments in their web browser which dumps them to dev/null and notifications with static text like "love u 4 ever dog" keep popping up on their desktop.
The real tragedy will happen once they've finished paying their debts to society and they get full access to the Internet with no one having told them not to read the comments.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but OSX has no high contrast - white on black themes. Also I couldn't find an easy/comfortable way of using the magnifier, I greatly prefer Win8's magnifier - it has a few limitations but I found OSX's one annoying.
From your descriptions of how you use of Windows accessibility features, it sounds like you've figured out highly efficient usage patterns and your facility with navigating the UI seems (to me) a bit higher than even many expert users. So, manipulating a different set of accessibility interface may not be comfortable or as useful for you, which totally makes sense. To answer your question about contrast:
OS X does have a separate slider and checkbox for contrast.
I don't use these regularly so can't comment on their usefulness. When I manipulate them, they do noticeably affect the display contrast, so much so that when the contrast slider is high enough, font edges of text and other UI elements start to wash out.
OS X does not implement themes and, like you, I would be ALL OVER a system-supported dark/professional theme. (With the latest version of OS X, Apple has introduced an extensions framework which opens a path to vendor-supported UI theming. But even if this is the direction OS X is headed, I would not expect custom themes for at least a couple more years.)
I have good corrected vision, so I don't use the magnifier regularly. I occasionally do fiddly UI work and it works OK enough for me in that instance. It has some customizability but not a whole lot.
On the customization front, I use a third-party piece of software that I sort of think of as my personal API for the UI (as well as much of the command line and UNIX layer). That software is Keyboard Maestro. It is definitely worth checking out if you regularly use a Mac-like machine ; ).
Not trying to troll (honest), but you but have you looked into Macintosh systems? The visual accessibility features are invoked at the level of the graphics layer (Quartz, I believe) so there's no futzing with colors as such.
For example, inverting colors (which is how I compute 99% of the time) cannot be overridden by third-party software. (The current trend for "professional" UIs, which avoids the black-text-on-white-background usability nightmare of most software and websites, makes me glad I can toggle this setting using a keyboard shortcut).
For your use case, there is an adjustable contrast setting that can be customized to the point of making your computer look like a Warhol painting if you want (thankfully, there is also the option to desaturate colors so the high-contrast display all black and white).
If you absolutely have to have particular Windows or Linux software, you could run those OS'es as VM guests, which is not ideal but at least you'll have access to the accessibility features in your host OS.
One of the things Apple gets better than many other software companies is accessibility. It's not perfect, but in my experience it's very good.
Intuitively? When I hit the "home" or "end" keys in terminal, I expect them to go to the home or end of the current command line I'm on, not to the top or bottom of the terminal. Why would I want the top or bottom of the terminal?
"Home" or "end" keys? Please.
Pro user tips: Ctrl-A gets you to the beginning of the line and Crtl-E to the line's end. This also works in web-based text input fields like Slashdot's and Google's (which may be a product of using Mac-compatible web browsers).
Look at the actual crime reporting figures, locally rape convictions stand at around 8 per 100,000. Now let's get crazy and say only one in twenty rapes and or sexual assault charges result in a conviction. Let's get even crazier and say one in twenty people who are raped even report the matter. That leaves us with 3200 per 100,000, or about one in thirty. Still almost an order of magnitude smaller than feminist figures and almost certainly still a gigantic exaggeration.
You're missing the dimension of time which crime statistics do include (you didn't include a link, btw). If your hypothesized/extrapolated numbers for rape is multiplied for the same population over a period of, say, 10 years and presuming each year produces new victims, that would mean than a relatively stable population base of 100,000 would yield 32,000 rapes.
It's not like rape (or any crime) only happens in a given population for only one year. People have lifespans and the number of victims accumulate over time, increasing the percentage of people who fall victim.
Your mistake was so easy to catch that if I didn't know better I'd say someone such a miss by someone who's looking so carefully at the data probably has an axe to grind.
Then again, maybe I don't know better and I'll say it anyway.
Actually, it is unconstitutional to have laws enacted in ways other than the constitution proscribes.[...].
Can the US government with absolutely no legislative act making a change but by board or panel constituted under it- constitutionally declare pot illegal.[...]
Everything you say after the last sentence I quoted is a straw man.
Reclassifying ISPs under Title II is not a legislative act. On the contrary, it depends on the legislative Act known as Title II.
You seem to think that classifying communications companies requires a legislative act when it does not. It simply requires a vote by the FCC and a reclassification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II would have consequences but the enactment of new legislation is not one of them.
The problem with the FCC taking control of something it has previously refused to control is a steep problem for republicans to overcome on a constitutional basis.
Why is the FCC regulating an industry that OBVIOUSLY WOULD BENEFIT FROM REGULATION a "problem to overcome"?
Oh, that's right. it's because the line of argumentation which backs populist conservative/Republican talking points cannot understand that Constitutionality does not prohibit the regulation of public utilities, especially when such regulation is in alignment with even the most hardcore conservative defenders of free market capitalism.
"which Internet service providers (ISPs) and Republicans say would unnecessarily burden the industry with regulation." - Except it IS NECESSARY, DUMMIES.
Given where US broadband is even in major metropolitan areas like San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, regulation as Title II is EXACTLY what US ISPs need to get their acts together. I mean 12 mbs down and 5 mbs up for $50/month in 2015. Give me a fucking break.
The great part of this Republican-backed shill bill? Obama is going to VETO it.
Suck THAT you plutocratic, money-grubbing, technologically-illiterate enemies of the United States. (Yes, I'm talking about the so-called "honorable" representatives who are backing this bill, whatever their political stripes may be. [Though we all know exactly what those stripes are, right?])
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, "if you make the government pay for it, people will complain about raising taxes" is a feature, not a bug. That's the point--the government should make it obvious that it is taking the money, so the public can decide whether it's really worth it. And sometimes they won't.
The likely outcome of leaving a mostly able-bodied populace to decide whether providing transportation to the disabled is "worth it" is precisely why such matters are and should be handled by the government which, ostensibly, promotes the common good.
How did you reach that conclusion? Genuinely curious.
Google Fight: "Lush band" vs. "Lush Cosmetics"
What do you think "Kiss my grits!" means?
"grit" = stockholder profit potential
Many geeks lack the social awareness to distinguish genuine feelings from emotional subterfuge, aka friendship vs. politicking.
Non-technical managers (and other "bosses", including PMs) often manipulate naive techies into sacrificing their personal lives for absurdly low pay and frivolities like ping pong and soda pop. Additionally, many geeks don't have deep and extensive social networks (aka friends and significant others) and so often don't have much incentive to value their own personal lives over work.
Now Google, Khan Academy, and other would-be Masters of the Univese are formalizing the cultivation of "grit" among undersocialized nerds, giving them certificates and free Internet access in the process?
I hope some of these young geeks will think about what this "grit" metric really means and look the executives right in the eye and tell them "You can kiss my grits!"
Yes, you posted before me but they are my thoughts too.
That's because THEY transmit the "thoughts" to people's brains... think about it!
I tried thinking about it but the transmissions wouldn't let me.
The first question that comes to my mind is, "What the fuck is the point of 2 Gbps service for residential customers?"
Your question is limited to existing technologies and platforms that are built around the assumption of 12/3Mbps connections at best.
Imagine a respectable percentage (or large enough market) where the network was reliably 2Gbps or more.
If the latency were low enough, there'd be less reason not to share multiple GB files on remote drives for editing locally, like agencies using Photoshop files between 700MB and 1GB large.
Hi quality VR conferencing might materialize if the machines connected to each other could exchange data at rates that today are considered too fast to do anything with.
Or what about existing or yet-to-exist distributed networks that might benefit from truly massive throughput? What would be possible with faster interconnectivity across great physical distances? Say 10Gbps. 100Gbps? 1Tbps? 2Exa bps?
Sure, none of those speeds even mean anything today let alone would be feasible in the current market, but hopefully you get my point, which is that the as-yet uncreated future technologies that would evolve and flourish under much faster and reliable Internet throughput can't be known in advance.
And like any resource rich ecosystem, you can bet that once those resources are there, someone and something will use them.
Yeah it'll be used for higher fidelity porn, more unwanted spam, and larger cat videos. But such a network will also be used for cool things like better medicine, more accurate physics, and more efficient manufacturing, in addition to stuff we can't know about yet.
Stop holding back the future by asking for comparisons from today.
[...]
you're a moron
not baseless insult. an objective description of the quality of your thought
what you wrote is hilariously solidly wrong. you blindly and blatantly deny basic facts of a subject matter you inject your puerile ignorance into
you're deluded uneducated wackjob and if you had any shame you would stop lying and making yourself look like a feeble crackpot to anyone who actually understands the simple basics of this subject matter
just shut the fuck up about what you clearly do not understand you dumb ignorant fuck
Come on. Tell us how you REALLY feel.
; )
Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
....to do it yourself. I cut sentence short there. Slashdot should implement an edit button.
Most users don't know it, but Slashdot actually has had an edit button since 1997.*
It appears after you click the "Preview" button and has the label "Continue Editing".
(* It's actually an anchor, but you get my drift.)
If the authorities already know about a bomb that is going to be phone detonated, they will have caught the terrorists already, or the FBI has probably set up some patsy to try it.
If an event like this happens after an emergency (like a second bomb after a first bombing), almost all cell phone lines go down automatically because everyone tries to call or message loved ones and clog the system up already.
Not going post 10 obvious work arounds because I will wind up on some watch list.
The great thing about parallel construction is that everyone is always already on a watch list.
How about a hammer?
People sometimes forget that their job is to solve problems rather than writing perfect programs.
Such an eloquent a reminder. Thank you.
Your post is modded "Insightful", but if I could, I would mod it "Dangerously Insightful". If women en masse knew that they could manipulate most men with a sweet smile and some relevant conversation, many of us would be doomed.
It cuts both (multiple) ways.
If $person1 is aware of sexual attraction on the part of $person2, it would not be too difficult for $person1 to manipulate $person2.
This is why it's important to behave respectfully, thoughtfully, and openly when dealing with other people. Men, women, what-have-you.
Actually they can still have booth babes they just need to look professional. Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.
I know you mean well, but you're completely missing the point.
they post snarky comments in their web browser which dumps them to dev/null and notifications with static text like "love u 4 ever dog" keep popping up on their desktop.
The real tragedy will happen once they've finished paying their debts to society and they get full access to the Internet with no one having told them not to read the comments.
Someone upthread posted a presentation of evidence contra speculations about the problems with climate models such as Dyson's.
The consensus models for AGW are accurate. You and Dyson need speculate no more.
How many people would buy the "Kate" model just so they can say "Kate, make me a sammich"?
Unless you're logged in as root, you have to use sudo
Please correct me if I'm wrong but OSX has no high contrast - white on black themes. Also I couldn't find an easy/comfortable way of using the magnifier, I greatly prefer Win8's magnifier - it has a few limitations but I found OSX's one annoying.
From your descriptions of how you use of Windows accessibility features, it sounds like you've figured out highly efficient usage patterns and your facility with navigating the UI seems (to me) a bit higher than even many expert users. So, manipulating a different set of accessibility interface may not be comfortable or as useful for you, which totally makes sense. To answer your question about contrast:
OS X does have a separate slider and checkbox for contrast.
I don't use these regularly so can't comment on their usefulness. When I manipulate them, they do noticeably affect the display contrast, so much so that when the contrast slider is high enough, font edges of text and other UI elements start to wash out.
OS X does not implement themes and, like you, I would be ALL OVER a system-supported dark/professional theme. (With the latest version of OS X, Apple has introduced an extensions framework which opens a path to vendor-supported UI theming. But even if this is the direction OS X is headed, I would not expect custom themes for at least a couple more years.)
I have good corrected vision, so I don't use the magnifier regularly. I occasionally do fiddly UI work and it works OK enough for me in that instance. It has some customizability but not a whole lot.
On the customization front, I use a third-party piece of software that I sort of think of as my personal API for the UI (as well as much of the command line and UNIX layer). That software is Keyboard Maestro. It is definitely worth checking out if you regularly use a Mac-like machine ; ).
Not trying to troll (honest), but you but have you looked into Macintosh systems? The visual accessibility features are invoked at the level of the graphics layer (Quartz, I believe) so there's no futzing with colors as such.
For example, inverting colors (which is how I compute 99% of the time) cannot be overridden by third-party software. (The current trend for "professional" UIs, which avoids the black-text-on-white-background usability nightmare of most software and websites, makes me glad I can toggle this setting using a keyboard shortcut).
For your use case, there is an adjustable contrast setting that can be customized to the point of making your computer look like a Warhol painting if you want (thankfully, there is also the option to desaturate colors so the high-contrast display all black and white).
If you absolutely have to have particular Windows or Linux software, you could run those OS'es as VM guests, which is not ideal but at least you'll have access to the accessibility features in your host OS.
One of the things Apple gets better than many other software companies is accessibility. It's not perfect, but in my experience it's very good.
YMMV
Intuitively? When I hit the "home" or "end" keys in terminal, I expect them to go to the home or end of the current command line I'm on, not to the top or bottom of the terminal. Why would I want the top or bottom of the terminal?
"Home" or "end" keys? Please.
Pro user tips: Ctrl-A gets you to the beginning of the line and Crtl-E to the line's end. This also works in web-based text input fields like Slashdot's and Google's (which may be a product of using Mac-compatible web browsers).
Look at the actual crime reporting figures, locally rape convictions stand at around 8 per 100,000. Now let's get crazy and say only one in twenty rapes and or sexual assault charges result in a conviction. Let's get even crazier and say one in twenty people who are raped even report the matter. That leaves us with 3200 per 100,000, or about one in thirty. Still almost an order of magnitude smaller than feminist figures and almost certainly still a gigantic exaggeration.
You're missing the dimension of time which crime statistics do include (you didn't include a link, btw). If your hypothesized/extrapolated numbers for rape is multiplied for the same population over a period of, say, 10 years and presuming each year produces new victims, that would mean than a relatively stable population base of 100,000 would yield 32,000 rapes.
It's not like rape (or any crime) only happens in a given population for only one year. People have lifespans and the number of victims accumulate over time, increasing the percentage of people who fall victim.
Your mistake was so easy to catch that if I didn't know better I'd say someone such a miss by someone who's looking so carefully at the data probably has an axe to grind.
Then again, maybe I don't know better and I'll say it anyway.
I just want to know how sitting on my ass all day increases my chance of being eaten by a shark by 15 to 20 percent.
You don't stand a chance against a Land Shark if you're sitting down.
Plumber
I didn't ask for a plumber. Who is it?
Telegram
Actually, it is unconstitutional to have laws enacted in ways other than the constitution proscribes.[...].
Can the US government with absolutely no legislative act making a change but by board or panel constituted under it- constitutionally declare pot illegal.[...]
Everything you say after the last sentence I quoted is a straw man.
Reclassifying ISPs under Title II is not a legislative act. On the contrary, it depends on the legislative Act known as Title II.
Here is a common-language explanation of the legality of using Title II to classify communications company as "common carriers".
You seem to think that classifying communications companies requires a legislative act when it does not. It simply requires a vote by the FCC and a reclassification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II would have consequences but the enactment of new legislation is not one of them.
The problem with the FCC taking control of something it has previously refused to control is a steep problem for republicans to overcome on a constitutional basis.
Why is the FCC regulating an industry that OBVIOUSLY WOULD BENEFIT FROM REGULATION a "problem to overcome"?
Oh, that's right. it's because the line of argumentation which backs populist conservative/Republican talking points cannot understand that Constitutionality does not prohibit the regulation of public utilities, especially when such regulation is in alignment with even the most hardcore conservative defenders of free market capitalism.
"which Internet service providers (ISPs) and Republicans say would unnecessarily burden the industry with regulation." - Except it IS NECESSARY, DUMMIES.
Given where US broadband is even in major metropolitan areas like San Francisco, New York, and Chicago, regulation as Title II is EXACTLY what US ISPs need to get their acts together. I mean 12 mbs down and 5 mbs up for $50/month in 2015. Give me a fucking break.
The great part of this Republican-backed shill bill? Obama is going to VETO it.
Suck THAT you plutocratic, money-grubbing, technologically-illiterate enemies of the United States. (Yes, I'm talking about the so-called "honorable" representatives who are backing this bill, whatever their political stripes may be. [Though we all know exactly what those stripes are, right?])