He tried to use his political power to dehumanize gay people, and did things like comparing gay sex to having sex with dogs. Dan Savage's response, as a gay person, one of the people Santorum was bullying, was to fight back.
Santorum was never not one of the people with power. And God forbid if he were to become President, he would have more power than anyone. He is not a victim. He is a victimizer.
Approval voting is simple. You mark the candidates you'd be okay with(not just the one you like the most), and the person with the most votes wins.
Make it so people can just circle the candidates they'd be okay with. This would cut down on extremist candidates and would improve the chances of candidates with wide appeal, would make voting easy to understand, and would make it easier to determine people's intended choices. It would remove people's incentive to vote for the "electable" candidate, and would encourage them to vote for candidates they really like.
The winning candidate would be the candidate who really had the most support among the voting population, not just the candidate who people thought most other people would vote for.
The way that information is presented can lead readers to interpret different things about any given piece of information.
For example, if I say "It was found that children who spent a lot of time using computers were more likely to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder," what might that make a reader think?
If I were to instead say "It was found that children who were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder seemed to use computers more than average," would that make readers think something else?
One of those statements might sound like an important breakthrough, but the other sounds fairly obvious. It seems more likely that autistic children prefer using computers, and not that using computers actually caused the children to become autistic.
They'll prosecute you for not giving them your password?
If they had enough evidence that they were able to get a search warrant to get the data on your computer, you were probably already about to be prosecuted for something pretty substantial.
If you had a choice between being prosecuted for not giving them your password or being prosecuted for whatever else you were about to be prosecuted for, I expect that in most cases you'd want to be prosecuted for not giving them your password.
The government can threaten you with an alternative prosecution, but they can never actually compel you to give up your password.
By mentioning the financial issue he hopes to make people pay attention to it instead of paying attention to the fact that he beat the shit out of her.
Giving someone financial support in no way justifies nor entitles anyone to beat the shit out of someone else. Whether or whether he did not provide her financial support is none of our business. The reason why she chose to disclose that he beat her is also none of our business.
Don't let him divert attention from the fact that he beat her like that.
I'll amend my post above by saying that each screen should have its own menu bar, but other than that, I do use multiple monitors(as I said in my post above), and having the menu bar at the top of the screen is easier than having it at the top of the window.
With Windows or common Linux desktop environments when you maximize a window the window takes up the full screen, regardless of whether there's enough content in the window to fill the whole screen. This often leaves vast areas of white space on the sides and bottom of the window.
On the Mac, the green button zooms the window to be big enough to see everything that's inside the window, and if you click it again it just returns to the size it was before. The maximize button to exit full screen in Windows behaves *identically* to the green button in OS X when exiting full screen. It returns the window to a user-determined size that doesn't necessarily show the full content of the window. Your lack of understanding of it doesn't make it bad design.
In the same way, having the icons on the right side makes more sense, because normally the windows cover up the space on the left. When I hit the green button, I can see 1. All of the content of the window, 2. the icons on my desktop, and 3. the windows behind my front window. How exactly is having vast areas of white space within the front window better than being able to still see the full content of the front window but also being able to use your much-valued screen real estate to see other things in the unused space around and behind it?
The x button closes the application if the application is only capable of having one window(like utility programs) and closes just the window if the application is capable of having multiple windows. This makes it so you don't have to wait for a whole application to relaunch if you accidentally close the last window. But most Mac users know that you can hit command q to completely close a program(which is the functionality you're claiming that OS X doesn't have) or command w to close just the window. It's interesting that you'd deride OS X for the fact that Windows lacks that granularity of function.
You can use a "Windows" keyboard with a Mac. Your old keyboard would work just fine. If you're using a MacBook or wireless keyboard you can hit fn delete. The wired keyboards also come with a forward delete button, page up and page down.
As for the menus being tied to the window, having them against the edge of the screen means that they're an infinite target that can't be overshot; to aim for something along the edge of the screen you only have to aim in one dimension(horizontally). With Windows, KDE or GNOME, users have to aim both vertically and horizontally to hit any menu. It takes less time to shoot the mouse to the top of the screen and aim left-right than it does to 1. Find the menus(since their position on the screen isn't static you actually have to locate the menu bar every time), 2. Find the proper menu, 3, move your mouse to it(especially without overshooting it). It's also easy to look at the top left corner of the screen and immediately identify the active program. And having only one menu bar saves screen real estate by saving the pixels that would have been used in a menu bar for every open window. As I'm arguing for the menus at the top I am looking at the 27" screen and the 26" screen sitting next to it on my desk.
Slashdot Mirror
Santorum is the bully.
He tried to use his political power to dehumanize gay people, and did things like comparing gay sex to having sex with dogs. Dan Savage's response, as a gay person, one of the people Santorum was bullying, was to fight back.
Santorum was never not one of the people with power. And God forbid if he were to become President, he would have more power than anyone. He is not a victim. He is a victimizer.
Oh, and institute approval voting.
Approval voting is simple. You mark the candidates you'd be okay with(not just the one you like the most), and the person with the most votes wins.
Make it so people can just circle the candidates they'd be okay with. This would cut down on extremist candidates and would improve the chances of candidates with wide appeal, would make voting easy to understand, and would make it easier to determine people's intended choices. It would remove people's incentive to vote for the "electable" candidate, and would encourage them to vote for candidates they really like.
The winning candidate would be the candidate who really had the most support among the voting population, not just the candidate who people thought most other people would vote for.
Move voting to the weekend(for people who can't get away from work).
Make it last a full weekend from Friday at noon until Monday at noon(for people who can't get away from work).
Move voting to the spring(for people who have bad weather in early November).
Make it so anyone can vote at any voting station rather than requiring that people go to only the one(for convenience).
Make it so all schools and all government offices are voting stations(for convenience).
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...
In Soviet China, the government controls the businesses!
The way that information is presented can lead readers to interpret different things about any given piece of information.
For example, if I say "It was found that children who spent a lot of time using computers were more likely to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder," what might that make a reader think?
If I were to instead say "It was found that children who were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder seemed to use computers more than average," would that make readers think something else?
One of those statements might sound like an important breakthrough, but the other sounds fairly obvious. It seems more likely that autistic children prefer using computers, and not that using computers actually caused the children to become autistic.
Or what?
They'll prosecute you for not giving them your password?
If they had enough evidence that they were able to get a search warrant to get the data on your computer, you were probably already about to be prosecuted for something pretty substantial.
If you had a choice between being prosecuted for not giving them your password or being prosecuted for whatever else you were about to be prosecuted for, I expect that in most cases you'd want to be prosecuted for not giving them your password.
The government can threaten you with an alternative prosecution, but they can never actually compel you to give up your password.
By mentioning the financial issue he hopes to make people pay attention to it instead of paying attention to the fact that he beat the shit out of her.
Giving someone financial support in no way justifies nor entitles anyone to beat the shit out of someone else. Whether or whether he did not provide her financial support is none of our business. The reason why she chose to disclose that he beat her is also none of our business.
Don't let him divert attention from the fact that he beat her like that.
I'll amend my post above by saying that each screen should have its own menu bar, but other than that, I do use multiple monitors(as I said in my post above), and having the menu bar at the top of the screen is easier than having it at the top of the window.
With Windows or common Linux desktop environments when you maximize a window the window takes up the full screen, regardless of whether there's enough content in the window to fill the whole screen. This often leaves vast areas of white space on the sides and bottom of the window.
On the Mac, the green button zooms the window to be big enough to see everything that's inside the window, and if you click it again it just returns to the size it was before. The maximize button to exit full screen in Windows behaves *identically* to the green button in OS X when exiting full screen. It returns the window to a user-determined size that doesn't necessarily show the full content of the window. Your lack of understanding of it doesn't make it bad design.
In the same way, having the icons on the right side makes more sense, because normally the windows cover up the space on the left. When I hit the green button, I can see 1. All of the content of the window, 2. the icons on my desktop, and 3. the windows behind my front window. How exactly is having vast areas of white space within the front window better than being able to still see the full content of the front window but also being able to use your much-valued screen real estate to see other things in the unused space around and behind it?
The x button closes the application if the application is only capable of having one window(like utility programs) and closes just the window if the application is capable of having multiple windows. This makes it so you don't have to wait for a whole application to relaunch if you accidentally close the last window. But most Mac users know that you can hit command q to completely close a program(which is the functionality you're claiming that OS X doesn't have) or command w to close just the window. It's interesting that you'd deride OS X for the fact that Windows lacks that granularity of function.
You can use a "Windows" keyboard with a Mac. Your old keyboard would work just fine. If you're using a MacBook or wireless keyboard you can hit fn delete. The wired keyboards also come with a forward delete button, page up and page down.
As for the menus being tied to the window, having them against the edge of the screen means that they're an infinite target that can't be overshot; to aim for something along the edge of the screen you only have to aim in one dimension(horizontally). With Windows, KDE or GNOME, users have to aim both vertically and horizontally to hit any menu. It takes less time to shoot the mouse to the top of the screen and aim left-right than it does to 1. Find the menus(since their position on the screen isn't static you actually have to locate the menu bar every time), 2. Find the proper menu, 3, move your mouse to it(especially without overshooting it). It's also easy to look at the top left corner of the screen and immediately identify the active program. And having only one menu bar saves screen real estate by saving the pixels that would have been used in a menu bar for every open window. As I'm arguing for the menus at the top I am looking at the 27" screen and the 26" screen sitting next to it on my desk.