> He's got some good points. He does express them in a way that's unnecessarily offensive and combative. > But that doesn't make him an asshole. That makes him a typical geek!
The situation under discussion is a trojan that replaced part of the bank's website code that is stored *on your local system*. If it could do that, it could just as easily change your browser (and that would be a much more effective attack), so relying on the browser to protect you is pointless.
Grandparent searched the *article* and found nothing. He's complaining that the author didn't do any pertinent research, not that the case law doesn't exist.
"Niggardly" has never been a racist term; it has always been derogatory (inasmuch as "ignorant" is derogatory). But the grandparent (the post you replied to) is right: "all the niggardly little details" makes absolutely no sense.
That's a good point. I would guess that quite a few of those are cases of the technique you mention. (The Senator who commissioned the study probably would include that in his denunciation of "tax trickery.") As to what largecorporations do, here's another quote from the article:
In 2005, one in four large United States corporations paid no taxes on revenue of $1.1 trillion, compared with 66 percent in the overall pool. Large corporations are those with at least $250 million in assets or annual sales of at least $50 million.
Many Republicans and other economic conservatives profess to believe in free markets and deregulation. Hypocritically, they staunchly support (and often demand) labor market regulation.
Not really, in general, in C and C++, for any function (and == is a function), the order of execution of the function arguments is undefined
First, the order is unspecified. Second, the operators are not a function in C, and in C++ they are functions only if one of the operands has a class type.
There is a large difference - the one is an assignment (which is undefined due to no sequence point between the variable undergoing modification)
Except that the standard does not make that distinction. The prohibition of modification is that the *same* object shall not have its value modified more than once between sequence points. Since a[i] = i++ does not modify the same object twice, that clause of the Standard *cannot* apply, which leaves only the other clause as the source of the constraint violation.
c == c++ or this: c != c++ are both well-defined.
If you said it was unspecified, you'd have an interesting argument, but you're just plain wrong. The standard explicitly leaves the timing of side effects unspecified.
Between the previous and next sequence point an object shall have its stored value modied at most once by the evaluation of an expression. Furthermore, the prior value shall be read only to determine the value to be stored.71)
And footnote 71 explains that, for example, a[i++] = i; is undefined. I don't see a pertinent difference between that and the expression in question (though footnotes are non-normative).
I can't remember the last time I had to jump to specific page w/o knowing how many pages were in a document.
I didn't say "a specific page". I said "the middle". And tons of programs don't display page numbers -- web browsers, for one.
I also know what application I want just about 999 out of 1000 times.
Whoop-dee doo. That wasn't the issue.
Anyway, don't get confused. Just because I am faster with a keyboard than a mouse doesn't mean I am slow with a mouse compared to others, including you.
Wow. The discussion was about what's faster on average for a variety of people. I sure hope your keyboarding skills are better than you're reading comprehension skills. But judging by how spectacularly you screwed up the HTML in your previous post, I wouldn't bet on it.
OK, so now you're arguing that figuring out the number of pages (admittedly easy in some contexts, but not all), dividing by two, then typing THREE separate key combinations is faster than a single mouse click. Bravo.
I often search twice to jump to the unique text before the repeated text.
And now you're arguing that figuring out what text near your link is unique and then typing it verbatim is faster than a single mouse click. Awesome!
No need to get your panties in a bunch, but I can play too...
Dude, do whatever makes you happy. But you're lying to yourself if you think the ridiculous methods quoted above are faster for any reason other than that you're used to them.
I would like to see anyone navigate through the start menu or finder to start Word faster (or even the Quick launch/Dock).
Apples to oranges. The program menu is a way to search for an application if you don't know what's on the system -- it's a graphically-enhanced 'ls/usr/bin'. It's not a way to launch commonly-used apps (that's what shortcuts are for).
Btw, I will ignore your pot shot at my inexpertise with the middle-click-drag only known to super 31337 users such as yourself.
You're the one who said the scroll wheel was comparable to page up/down. Don't get pissed because I called you on your strawman.
Open a new browser tab (winner: keybd) Close a browser tab (winner: keybd) Navigate forward/back in the history (winner: keybd)
Those are all arguably faster with gestures.
Go to a history/bookmarked URL (winner: keybd)
With most browsers, I'd say this is true. With Opera's Speed Dial, it becomes a matter of whether you've memorized the name of the site (or bookmark). Just open a new tab, and you see a (fairly large) picture of each of your bookmarked sites. Click on the one you want to visit (or Ctrl+Number). This method makes both the keyboard and the mouse faster (and near-equivalent, IMO) by removing the dependence on the user's memory for speed.
Run an application (winner: keybd)
Only if you've memorized the name of the command. What you're really saying here is that searching for a program is slower than already having it memorized. I guarantee you that clicking on a desktop shortcut (and you have your dekstop set for single-click mode, right?) is faster than executing the key combo, then typing a word, then hitting enter.
Cut,copy,paste is a process, not just a key combo. I've found that the process usually works best when you use both the keyboard and the mouse. The mouse is better for selecting large blocks of text and getting the cursor to the general area where you want it. The keyboard is better for precision movements.
Scrolling via arrow, pgup/dn, home/end vs. wheel (winner: keybd)
Let's have a race. We each have an identical several-hundred-page document. You use the page keys, I'll click on the scroll bar. First to the middle wins. Also, your mention of the scroll wheel belies your inexpertise with the mouse. The correct tool is the "middle-click drag" auto-scroll feature.
Switching between applications/windows (winner: keybd)
The advantage of the keyboard over the mouse is its parallel nature. Alt-tab is an inherently serial process, so it eliminates the advantage completely. (If you happen to know that the window you want is the previously-active window, then sure, alt-tab is inherently faster. But that's an incredibly special-case scenario.)
Click a link (Tie. I generally hit / and start typing the link text, hit escape, then enter to visit the link. Sometimes moving the mouse over the link is faster.)
That method is incredibly limited. You can't click on buttons or images. You lose context as you type since the screen's jumping around thanks to search-as-you-type. It fails miserably is the link text is repeated multiple times (eg "reply to this" on slashdot). IHBT. IHL. HAND.
While mouse gestures are certainly nice, they are, in my experience, far more prone to inaccuracy compared to a key presses. Mistakenly closing a browser tab happens far more often with gestures than the keyboard.
That is not at all my experience. Perhaps what you mean to say is that you are prone to imprecision with the mouse (especially if the next item is true for you). From this and other assertions of yours, the only conclusion I can make is that you're not very good with the mouse.
Slashdot Mirror
> He's got some good points. He does express them in a way that's unnecessarily offensive and combative.
> But that doesn't make him an asshole. That makes him a typical geek!
No, it really does make him an asshole.
> Turning up the speed makes it more difficult to be precise in my experience.
That's why the Good Lord invented cursor acceleration. Amen.
There are people referred to simply as "crewman". And in ST6, at least one of the guys who assasinated Gorkun was called a "Yeoman".
All you need to change (to affect 99% of users) is a few shortcuts -- that is, user data.
Your argument model isn't very good. Here it is in another context: You were wrong about that one thing, so you must be wrong about everything.
The situation under discussion is a trojan that replaced part of the bank's website code that is stored *on your local system*. If it could do that, it could just as easily change your browser (and that would be a much more effective attack), so relying on the browser to protect you is pointless.
Uh... because treason is defined in the Constitution, and this is not it.
The questions didn't test understanding. They tested memorization.
Grandparent searched the *article* and found nothing. He's complaining that the author didn't do any pertinent research, not that the case law doesn't exist.
"Niggardly" has never been a racist term; it has always been derogatory (inasmuch as "ignorant" is derogatory). But the grandparent (the post you replied to) is right: "all the niggardly little details" makes absolutely no sense.
Neither the software that came with my scanner nor the software that came with my printer run in Vista.
Sending email has a cost. Why "should" the cost be paid by somebody else?
I believe he means simply that sending e-mail should not have additional costs above normal network use.
Only if mass-as-gravitational-charge and mass-as-resistance-to-acceleration are related.
Someone should read about fractals.
It's "GoldenSTEENberg"!
As much as I disagree with Republicans on this issue, they're position is based in populism, not plutocracy.
That's a good point. I would guess that quite a few of those are cases of the technique you mention. (The Senator who commissioned the study probably would include that in his denunciation of "tax trickery.") As to what largecorporations do, here's another quote from the article:
Cause aside from despotic tyranny - that is about the only system where a government official can order around a business he/she does not own.
People should be free, not inanimate entities.
But I'll compromise. If they give up their special favors from the government, I'll support the government removing extra responsibilities:
Many Republicans and other economic conservatives profess to believe in free markets and deregulation. Hypocritically, they staunchly support (and often demand) labor market regulation.
First, the order is unspecified.
Second, the operators are not a function in C, and in C++ they are functions only if one of the operands has a class type.
Except that the standard does not make that distinction. The prohibition of modification is that the *same* object shall not have its value modified more than once between sequence points. Since a[i] = i++ does not modify the same object twice, that clause of the Standard *cannot* apply, which leaves only the other clause as the source of the constraint violation.
If you said it was unspecified, you'd have an interesting argument, but you're just plain wrong. The standard explicitly leaves the timing of side effects unspecified.
Quoth C99:
And footnote 71 explains that, for example, a[i++] = i; is undefined. I don't see a pertinent difference between that and the expression in question (though footnotes are non-normative).
Actually, C != C++ is undefined behavior.
I can't remember the last time I had to jump to specific page w/o knowing how many pages were in a document.
I didn't say "a specific page". I said "the middle". And tons of programs don't display page numbers -- web browsers, for one.
I also know what application I want just about 999 out of 1000 times.
Whoop-dee doo. That wasn't the issue.
Anyway, don't get confused. Just because I am faster with a keyboard than a mouse doesn't mean I am slow with a mouse compared to others, including you.
Wow. The discussion was about what's faster on average for a variety of people. I sure hope your keyboarding skills are better than you're reading comprehension skills. But judging by how spectacularly you screwed up the HTML in your previous post, I wouldn't bet on it.
With a 500-page documet, Ctrl+G, 250, enter.
OK, so now you're arguing that figuring out the number of pages (admittedly easy in some contexts, but not all), dividing by two, then typing THREE separate key combinations is faster than a single mouse click. Bravo.
I often search twice to jump to the unique text before the repeated text.
And now you're arguing that figuring out what text near your link is unique and then typing it verbatim is faster than a single mouse click. Awesome!
No need to get your panties in a bunch, but I can play too...
Dude, do whatever makes you happy. But you're lying to yourself if you think the ridiculous methods quoted above are faster for any reason other than that you're used to them.
I would like to see anyone navigate through the start menu or finder to start Word faster (or even the Quick launch/Dock).
Apples to oranges. The program menu is a way to search for an application if you don't know what's on the system -- it's a graphically-enhanced 'ls /usr/bin'. It's not a way to launch commonly-used apps (that's what shortcuts are for).
Btw, I will ignore your pot shot at my inexpertise with the middle-click-drag only known to super 31337 users such as yourself.
You're the one who said the scroll wheel was comparable to page up/down. Don't get pissed because I called you on your strawman.
Those are all arguably faster with gestures.
With most browsers, I'd say this is true. With Opera's Speed Dial, it becomes a matter of whether you've memorized the name of the site (or bookmark). Just open a new tab, and you see a (fairly large) picture of each of your bookmarked sites. Click on the one you want to visit (or Ctrl+Number). This method makes both the keyboard and the mouse faster (and near-equivalent, IMO) by removing the dependence on the user's memory for speed.
Only if you've memorized the name of the command. What you're really saying here is that searching for a program is slower than already having it memorized. I guarantee you that clicking on a desktop shortcut (and you have your dekstop set for single-click mode, right?) is faster than executing the key combo, then typing a word, then hitting enter.
Cut,copy,paste is a process, not just a key combo. I've found that the process usually works best when you use both the keyboard and the mouse. The mouse is better for selecting large blocks of text and getting the cursor to the general area where you want it. The keyboard is better for precision movements.
Let's have a race. We each have an identical several-hundred-page document. You use the page keys, I'll click on the scroll bar. First to the middle wins. Also, your mention of the scroll wheel belies your inexpertise with the mouse. The correct tool is the "middle-click drag" auto-scroll feature.
The advantage of the keyboard over the mouse is its parallel nature. Alt-tab is an inherently serial process, so it eliminates the advantage completely. (If you happen to know that the window you want is the previously-active window, then sure, alt-tab is inherently faster. But that's an incredibly special-case scenario.)
That method is incredibly limited. You can't click on buttons or images. You lose context as you type since the screen's jumping around thanks to search-as-you-type. It fails miserably is the link text is repeated multiple times (eg "reply to this" on slashdot). IHBT. IHL. HAND.
That is not at all my experience. Perhaps what you mean to say is that you are prone to imprecision with the mouse (especially if the next item is true for you). From this and other assertions of yours, the only conclusion I can make is that you're not very good with the mouse.