I had only suspicions before, but after reading your latest comment I'm pretty confident that you are quite stupid.
Everybody knows exactly what happened to Clinton. So edit the statement to read "Clinton got impeached for lying about getting a bj from a fat chick" and it still carries the same meaning.
To idiots, perhaps, but not in law. When some poor, hungry schmuck steals food and gets caught, he's not charged with "being poor"; he's charged with theft.
Clinton was impeached for an act that was of no consequence to the nation.
He was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury about "an act that was of no consequence to the nation." That was his own damn fault.
Since the new "major version release" change, every time I've updated Firefox, I've had to fuss with incompatible plugins. I just upgraded to 7, and luckily, it didn't require yet another install of Firebug, though there were a few other incompatibilities.
The upgrade to Firefox 7.0 on my work computer did something I've never seen Firefox do before: two of my extensions just went away. No incompatibility messages or anything. I only just noticed this morning that the NoScript button was missing from the toolbar where I had placed it and it wasn't in the Customize menu, either. So, I reinstalled it. That's when the Firebug button magically reappeared. I hadn't noticed it was missing until I had reinstalled NoScript and restarted the browser.
Also, the YSlow add-on bar widget changed positions.
Now glaciologists are left trying to figure out how not understate the importance of the extent glacial ice melt, while at the same time correcting the error.
How about you just be honest in the first place? If you are right about climate change, you don't need to exaggerate your claims. They should speak for themselves.
Well, for one, it wasn't the glaciologists that screwed up. Arguably, they shouldn't be the ones issuing a correction in this case, but it may be that they don't exactly trust the Times Atlas of the World to do it properly.
Second, even if they're being honest, if not worded properly, political opponents of AGW can easily spin the statement as, "Climatologists admit that glacial melting isn't nearly as bad as claimed." It's my opinion, however, that this will happen regardless of how carefully the statement is worded.
I tested it earlier today and I think it looks great. The boot time is insanely fast, the metro UI is better than I thought and you can still easily change to the normal Windows shell.
They're working on that. Remember, it's just a preview; there are bound to be flaws.
First MS buys Hotmail and my Hotmail goes to crap...
I don't think you're remembering just how awful Hotmail was before Microsoft bought them. It wasn't uncommon for an email to take several days to work its way through the system, even from one Hotmail address to another.
It's kind of hard to take him seriously when he claims the menu bar has been "made bigger and more prominent", right underneath a screenshot showing that Windows 8 Explorer doesn't have any menu bar at all!
Umm... The ribbon is generally considered a replacement for the menu bar.
And even those are typically driven by some dumb user saying such-n-such application must have feature x [...]
Would it be too much to ask that you not prove the point you're arguing against? To label any user that makes a feature request (or even demand) "dumb" is hostile.
[...] and developers saying something like, "great, but we don't have y and z, which are requirements for x - would you contribute x?" Followed by the user getting all pissed about how only he has vision and the developers are pooh-pooh heads.
And why shouldn't the user get pissed? He's just a user, not a developer. To ask that he contribute the feature he's asking for is beyond asinine. If he were capable of doing so, he wouldn't be asking; he'd probably just maintain his own "fork" of the software with his personal customizations.
It seems that you don't see a problem because you're actually part of it...
I understand that developers of open source software essentially work for free and in their spare time, and it can be very frustrating when even one of their users doesn't seem to appreciate their work, but that's life. And if you don't want "dumb users" harassing you about your own hard work, don't share it publicly; don't set up public forums or IRC channels; don't do anything to encourage these "dumb users" to communicate with you. "Problem" solved.
Actually, it's pretty old. I doubt you'd find too many people here on Slashdot that haven't run into some hostility from open source developers or their groupies in their early years.
So "Big Oil has almost no control over the price of oil these days. That power squarely rests with oil-rich nations that hold most of the world's oil reserves" is NOT the government (actually many foreign governments) controlling the price of oil?
I'm not sure where you got that idea from the summary. It seems as though you feel the bit you quote in the subject refers to who sets the prices, so then you pick another quote from the summary to expose a "contradiction".
If you had finished reading the last six words of the summary, however, you would have realized the bit you quoted in the subject is referring to which force breaks up Big Oil companies, not who sets the price of oil.
I've tried this and it works well as a deodorant but I worried about the Alzheimer's risks from absorbing the Al through my skin. Do you think it's safe?
I know that eye candy isn't really the measure of a quality product, but, by the same token, I can't comfortably use an application that is visually offensive to me. Thunderbird 3.1 on Windows XP had some aspects of its UI that didn't seem quite right. When I moved to Windows 7, everything looked pretty good.
Then Thunderbird 5 comes out with their "theme fixes" and the menu bar and Mail Toolbar look unbelievable awful. I use Thunderbird to access my two Gmail accounts, because I prefer a more traditional, folder-like interface to Gmail's weird labeling scheme. Since the major reason for me using Thunderbird (the UI) has gone straight to hell, I may just have to suck it up and get used to Gmail's web interface.
Mozilla's losing its shit. These are some fairly serious fumbles they've been making lately.
For the technologically confused, it's just a change in version numbering. That's all. 5.0 is essentially 4.1 (or maybe even 4.0.2). Nothing super-crazy going on.
So why not just call it what it actually is?
The only real issue is the possibility that some extensions weren't properly updated to understand this.
To understand what? There are a number of solutions to this problem, most of which put the burden of maintaining sanity on people other than Mozilla:
1) Mozilla returns to a sane versioning scheme.
2) Mozilla comes up with a method of determining extension compatibility that doesn't rely on Fx's version number.
3) Extension developers update the maximum compatible version number for their extensions to the current or upcoming version of Fx every 3 months to "maintain compatibility". This sort of thing has already been a problem, but the new situation makes it even worse.
4) Extension developers update the maximum version number for their extension to a version number in the distant future (4.* -> 8.*), risking an actual incompatibility when Mozilla does make a major change to Firefox.
5) The user runs yet another extension to do a job that they shouldn't even be concerned with.
>If you want it, you've got it. >$ sudo apt-get install synaptic
No. The reality and the point is that each new generation won't know about it, but will use the new shiny default "tool." Synaptic use will thus go down.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the situation you describe. Besides, isn't Synaptic just a "shiny tool", too?
While the dream of an Ubuntu Desktop is one thing, lowering the complexity of the software installation process lowers the intelligence bar for using *nix, which in the end, lowers the chance that the users will ever get as far as #, much less #sudo apt-get.
I believe this is the first time, on the internet or otherwise, that someone implied that I was racist after taking a completely unrelated statement out of context.
X0563511 got it. If you don't want to sound like X, then just don't say the thing that you think will make you sound like X. If you're going to make the statement anyway, spare us the useless preface and either 1) expend a little effort to support your claim, or 2) accept your outward appearance.
I implore you to read more than half of my sentence.
And here I thought that my response to that other half of your sentence would have been sufficient evidence of my having done as you suggested. Ignoring evidence? Conjuring up fantasies? Nope; not a tinfoil hatter at all...
[...] but something tells me that these guys are contracted by the government because supporters of the Patriot Act are thinning in numbers.
That people may take advantage of a situation is not evidence that they are responsible, directly or indirectly, for that situation. Politicians are, if anything, opportunistic. Also, it's not like there's never been a group of assholes on the Internet making trouble for a bunch of people.
A 2000 Environment News Service article on the Canadian federal court judgment noted "Monsanto did not directly try to explain how the Roundup Ready seed got there. "Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not matters not at all", said Roger Hughes, a Monsanto attorney quoted by the Western Producer, a Canadian agriculture magazine.... 'It was a very frightening thing, because they said it doesn't matter how it gets into a farmer's field; it's their property," Schmeiser said, in an interview with Agweek. "If it gets in by wind or cross-pollination, that doesn't matter'". "The legal basis for Monsanto's successful claim for patent infringement was the courts' recognition that they could maintain patent protection in the patented gene even when it had passed by cross-fertilization into Schmeiser's canola crop"
Regarding the question of patent rights and the farmer's right to use seed taken from his fields, Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally in someone else's field.
Now, the focus seemed to be on the fact that Schmeiser replanted seed from the contaminated field after realizing that 60% of that field was Roundup-resistant. However, some of the tertiary comments made by Monsanto hint at something a bit more nefarious.
Why not make the point of saying that they'll consider moving their office location should there be any sign of such legal obligations?
Right. Because if there's one thing we need more of is companies and corporations with the power to threaten governments into submission, or dictate to governments which of that country's laws they will or will not follow.
I realize that sometimes a corporation may seem like the only entity with the resources to push back against the government, but that's an unbelievably dangerous situation to actively promote.
Slashdot Mirror
How stupid do you think we are?
I had only suspicions before, but after reading your latest comment I'm pretty confident that you are quite stupid.
Everybody knows exactly what happened to Clinton. So edit the statement to read "Clinton got impeached for lying about getting a bj from a fat chick" and it still carries the same meaning.
To idiots, perhaps, but not in law. When some poor, hungry schmuck steals food and gets caught, he's not charged with "being poor"; he's charged with theft.
Clinton was impeached for an act that was of no consequence to the nation.
He was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury about "an act that was of no consequence to the nation." That was his own damn fault.
Since the new "major version release" change, every time I've updated Firefox, I've had to fuss with incompatible plugins. I just upgraded to 7, and luckily, it didn't require yet another install of Firebug, though there were a few other incompatibilities.
The upgrade to Firefox 7.0 on my work computer did something I've never seen Firefox do before: two of my extensions just went away. No incompatibility messages or anything. I only just noticed this morning that the NoScript button was missing from the toolbar where I had placed it and it wasn't in the Customize menu, either. So, I reinstalled it. That's when the Firebug button magically reappeared. I hadn't noticed it was missing until I had reinstalled NoScript and restarted the browser.
Also, the YSlow add-on bar widget changed positions.
Now glaciologists are left trying to figure out how not understate the importance of the extent glacial ice melt, while at the same time correcting the error.
How about you just be honest in the first place? If you are right about climate change, you don't need to exaggerate your claims. They should speak for themselves.
Well, for one, it wasn't the glaciologists that screwed up. Arguably, they shouldn't be the ones issuing a correction in this case, but it may be that they don't exactly trust the Times Atlas of the World to do it properly.
Second, even if they're being honest, if not worded properly, political opponents of AGW can easily spin the statement as, "Climatologists admit that glacial melting isn't nearly as bad as claimed." It's my opinion, however, that this will happen regardless of how carefully the statement is worded.
I tested it earlier today and I think it looks great. The boot time is insanely fast, the metro UI is better than I thought and you can still easily change to the normal Windows shell.
They're working on that. Remember, it's just a preview; there are bound to be flaws.
ICD-9 had codes for masturbation.
Go ahead and think about why I might know that. Scar yourselves.
What's the medical code for that?
First MS buys Hotmail and my Hotmail goes to crap...
I don't think you're remembering just how awful Hotmail was before Microsoft bought them. It wasn't uncommon for an email to take several days to work its way through the system, even from one Hotmail address to another.
It's kind of hard to take him seriously when he claims the menu bar has been "made bigger and more prominent", right underneath a screenshot showing that Windows 8 Explorer doesn't have any menu bar at all!
Umm... The ribbon is generally considered a replacement for the menu bar.
Really?
In both or just source?
I don't know about 1.6, but they're definitely not in Source; never have been.
And even those are typically driven by some dumb user saying such-n-such application must have feature x [...]
Would it be too much to ask that you not prove the point you're arguing against? To label any user that makes a feature request (or even demand) "dumb" is hostile.
[...] and developers saying something like, "great, but we don't have y and z, which are requirements for x - would you contribute x?" Followed by the user getting all pissed about how only he has vision and the developers are pooh-pooh heads.
And why shouldn't the user get pissed? He's just a user, not a developer. To ask that he contribute the feature he's asking for is beyond asinine. If he were capable of doing so, he wouldn't be asking; he'd probably just maintain his own "fork" of the software with his personal customizations.
It seems that you don't see a problem because you're actually part of it...
I understand that developers of open source software essentially work for free and in their spare time, and it can be very frustrating when even one of their users doesn't seem to appreciate their work, but that's life. And if you don't want "dumb users" harassing you about your own hard work, don't share it publicly; don't set up public forums or IRC channels; don't do anything to encourage these "dumb users" to communicate with you. "Problem" solved.
hostile support community
That's a new one.
Actually, it's pretty old. I doubt you'd find too many people here on Slashdot that haven't run into some hostility from open source developers or their groupies in their early years.
So "Big Oil has almost no control over the price of oil these days. That power squarely rests with oil-rich nations that hold most of the world's oil reserves" is NOT the government (actually many foreign governments) controlling the price of oil?
I'm not sure where you got that idea from the summary. It seems as though you feel the bit you quote in the subject refers to who sets the prices, so then you pick another quote from the summary to expose a "contradiction".
If you had finished reading the last six words of the summary, however, you would have realized the bit you quoted in the subject is referring to which force breaks up Big Oil companies, not who sets the price of oil.
Maybe I'm missing some too-subtle humor here, but... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect
No, we're moving toward awareness of the police state we are already living in.
I wish people would stop abusing the phrase "police state". There's so much more to an actual police state than "a bunch of cops are dicks".
Certain features in google's pages (like blocking search results) only work for Chrome.
That's false and easy enough to verify as false.
The summary is almost entirely unrelated to actual page being linked to. No impact... no "huge splash".
Get rid of timothy, Slashdot. He's worthless.
I've tried this and it works well as a deodorant but I worried about the Alzheimer's risks from absorbing the Al through my skin. Do you think it's safe?
Is what safe?
I know that eye candy isn't really the measure of a quality product, but, by the same token, I can't comfortably use an application that is visually offensive to me. Thunderbird 3.1 on Windows XP had some aspects of its UI that didn't seem quite right. When I moved to Windows 7, everything looked pretty good.
Then Thunderbird 5 comes out with their "theme fixes" and the menu bar and Mail Toolbar look unbelievable awful. I use Thunderbird to access my two Gmail accounts, because I prefer a more traditional, folder-like interface to Gmail's weird labeling scheme. Since the major reason for me using Thunderbird (the UI) has gone straight to hell, I may just have to suck it up and get used to Gmail's web interface.
Mozilla's losing its shit. These are some fairly serious fumbles they've been making lately.
For the technologically confused, it's just a change in version numbering. That's all. 5.0 is essentially 4.1 (or maybe even 4.0.2). Nothing super-crazy going on.
So why not just call it what it actually is?
The only real issue is the possibility that some extensions weren't properly updated to understand this.
To understand what? There are a number of solutions to this problem, most of which put the burden of maintaining sanity on people other than Mozilla:
1) Mozilla returns to a sane versioning scheme.
2) Mozilla comes up with a method of determining extension compatibility that doesn't rely on Fx's version number.
3) Extension developers update the maximum compatible version number for their extensions to the current or upcoming version of Fx every 3 months to "maintain compatibility". This sort of thing has already been a problem, but the new situation makes it even worse.
4) Extension developers update the maximum version number for their extension to a version number in the distant future (4.* -> 8.*), risking an actual incompatibility when Mozilla does make a major change to Firefox.
5) The user runs yet another extension to do a job that they shouldn't even be concerned with.
>If you want it, you've got it.
>$ sudo apt-get install synaptic
No. The reality and the point is that each new generation won't know about it, but will use the new shiny default "tool." Synaptic use will thus go down.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the situation you describe. Besides, isn't Synaptic just a "shiny tool", too?
While the dream of an Ubuntu Desktop is one thing, lowering the complexity of the software installation process lowers the intelligence bar for using *nix, which in the end, lowers the chance that the users will ever get as far as #, much less #sudo apt-get.
So what?
Other than the size of the delivered bang?
They'll now be classified as "weapons of mass non-hostility".
I believe this is the first time, on the internet or otherwise, that someone implied that I was racist after taking a completely unrelated statement out of context.
X0563511 got it. If you don't want to sound like X, then just don't say the thing that you think will make you sound like X. If you're going to make the statement anyway, spare us the useless preface and either 1) expend a little effort to support your claim, or 2) accept your outward appearance.
I implore you to read more than half of my sentence.
And here I thought that my response to that other half of your sentence would have been sufficient evidence of my having done as you suggested. Ignoring evidence? Conjuring up fantasies? Nope; not a tinfoil hatter at all...
I don't want to sound like a tinfoil hatter [...]
"I'm not a racist, but..."
[...] but something tells me that these guys are contracted by the government because supporters of the Patriot Act are thinning in numbers.
That people may take advantage of a situation is not evidence that they are responsible, directly or indirectly, for that situation. Politicians are, if anything, opportunistic. Also, it's not like there's never been a group of assholes on the Internet making trouble for a bunch of people.
Your conspiracy theory is just empty calories.
This will be used to push forth legislation making script kiddies equivalent to terrorists.
Very probable. That doesn't mean it's a setup, though. Some smart people are "that dumb".
Please cite a case where a farmer was made responsible for pollen from a Monsanto product getting into his area.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers#Monsanto_v._Percy_Schmeiser
A 2000 Environment News Service article on the Canadian federal court judgment noted "Monsanto did not directly try to explain how the Roundup Ready seed got there. "Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not matters not at all", said Roger Hughes, a Monsanto attorney quoted by the Western Producer, a Canadian agriculture magazine.... 'It was a very frightening thing, because they said it doesn't matter how it gets into a farmer's field; it's their property," Schmeiser said, in an interview with Agweek. "If it gets in by wind or cross-pollination, that doesn't matter'". "The legal basis for Monsanto's successful claim for patent infringement was the courts' recognition that they could maintain patent protection in the patented gene even when it had passed by cross-fertilization into Schmeiser's canola crop"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser
Regarding the question of patent rights and the farmer's right to use seed taken from his fields, Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally in someone else's field.
Now, the focus seemed to be on the fact that Schmeiser replanted seed from the contaminated field after realizing that 60% of that field was Roundup-resistant. However, some of the tertiary comments made by Monsanto hint at something a bit more nefarious.
Why not make the point of saying that they'll consider moving their office location should there be any sign of such legal obligations?
Right. Because if there's one thing we need more of is companies and corporations with the power to threaten governments into submission, or dictate to governments which of that country's laws they will or will not follow.
I realize that sometimes a corporation may seem like the only entity with the resources to push back against the government, but that's an unbelievably dangerous situation to actively promote.