Yes, there are (education for example). But I believe these services are very rare, and electricity is not one of them. That's funny. I always find it ironic how now generations later, there are those that would like rehash the same battles from the the 19th and early 20th centuries. Or as one person put it, "repeal the 20th century."
In 1936, the United States lagged behind the rest of the industrialized world in electrification. Vast swaths of the country simply didn't have electricity, because the large electric companies refused to serve the rural area, and furthermore argued that the government should provide the electrification they were unwilling to provide because that would be "unfair competition." How you can have unfair compeition when one side refuses to participate, is something only plutocrats can understand.
Thus the Rural Electrification Adminstration was created. In three years, the REA wired up 288,000 homes, prompting private companies to enter the market and lower their prices. By the end of 1939, 40% of rural homes had power, up from around 10% in 1930.
One of those houses that was wired was my grandmother's.
Electricity is one of the most important utilties in the modern world. The modern world simply doesn't exist without electricity. To imply that it is not essential like water or sewer in today's world is absurd.
And don't change the argument, within cities, DSL is available in even the poorest areas. The poor in the US are still relatively affluent, and it is still very profitable for infrastructure companies to cover them. Broadband is sucks the US. It has for years now. Competition is nonexistent. We pay significantly more, and get significantly less. Our cellphone networks are a joke. Our telecom infrastructure sucks. Plain and simple.
Finally, once the city starts doing the networking, competition will leave. I'm sorry, but that's patently false. Why? Because it presuposes that compeition exists today, and that's not the case. Cringely recently discussed American broadband how it went from being the world's leader to the back in the pack in just a few short years. It's a good read, and I highly recommend it. What's relevant to this discussion is the raw data about telco competition. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed with purpose (among others) to increase competition and encourage broadband deployment. Afterall, competition spurs investment, which advances technology, which helps consumers, which helps the country. Competition is the foundation of a capitalism. In 1996, the United States had 15 national broadband ISPs. Today we have five. The US used to have 12 major landline telcoms, now we have three. Remember the CLECs? Remember what happened to those? That's right. They folded, due to the OLECs dragging their feet and out right sabotaging the CLECs because of lax regulation and enforcement.
Now everytime a merger took place the same story was told: By combining forces and leveraging synergies and yada yada yada, the bigger companies can offer more services, better compete, and thus benefit customers. Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
While it is true, to a point, that bigger companies can offer more and diverse services, the fact is that these new services, never materialized. Even at the time, it was unclear what services the merged company could/would provide that the smaller companies couldn't/wouldn't. What happened was completely predictable, and was predicted. The larger companies hunkered down, reduced spending in product developement, and increased profits. Exactly what happens in every market with inadequate competition.
This is actually a good example on why it is in the public interest to maintain competition. Capitalism is good. It's the best thing out there. It realizes that people are inherently greedy selfish bastards, and uses that as the engine of the economy by pitting opposing forces at each other. It's great. However. Pure, laissez faire capitalism (which is frequently promotoed) actually destorys competition. The goal of every company rightfully is to run the competition out buisness. To dominate the market, and become a monopoly, and then jack up the prices to further maximize profits. That's a good goal. But that's all it should be. A goal. Monopolies are a result of breakdown in competition. In math terms, capitalism is a greedy algorthm, that frequently find local minima. Breaking up trusts, resets the competition and encourages economic growth. It's good for everyone, except the trust being broke up, but that doesn't matter, since the economy as a whole benefits.
Soon, committees will suggest getting filtering software. After all, public money can't subsidize smut. Or religion. Or hate speech. Pretty soon, the only unblocked sites will be Disney.com. What will the power users to then? Now this I absolutely agree with. Except perhaps disney.com. Afterall they have gay days, and there's the little mermaid thing. (Snopes) I'm thinking you'd be stuck with just FoxNews and and the 700 Club. Think of it as the Internet being regulated by the FCC, but with none of the protections to consumers provided with 19th and early 20th century technologies (e.g. voice telephony)
You're right that it's custom hardware and software, and thus more expensive simply because there's not the economy of scale like in mass produced goods.
That said. Your GPS iPaq counter example struck me as ironic, as that's exactly what the prototype was. (Hell, that's what the prototype has been for Blue Force Tracking for years now.)
Since the Army felt comfortable with field testing an iPaq in a combat zone, I suspect the deployed system isn't going to be that much different
The geek in me loves the idea of tracking everyone one on the battlefield on and sending encrypted coordinates back and forth and everything. Wearable computing. Augmented reality. It's all good in da hood baby. But at the same time, whenever I read about Land Warrior, these words (which I believe was actually posted many years ago here on/. about Land Warrior) always echo in my head: "Get a bullet in a paper map, and you have a map with a hole in it. Get a bullet in your whizbang electronic map, you have a paper weight."
You're right this isn't ATHF part two. That was obviously not a bomb, This wasn't obvious.
My first reaction was to assume that she wanted to provoke a reaction, too. I thought, "This has ''don't tase me bro'' written all over it." But from what I read on boingboing, from people that know her, she made the shirt a while ago and it reads "Course VI" (MIT speak for EE/CS), and the "explosive" is some sort of electroluminecent puffpaint. Apparently, she wears it everywhere.
In light of that info, I'm thinking she simply put on her hoodie, and went to the airport to pickup her boyfriend.
Should she have worn that shirt? Oh hell no! She should have known better, but honestly, I don't think she even thought about it.
Did the cops overreact? No. I while I don't think that it necessarily resembled a bomb, I do think that it was reasonable to investigate it further, which means the cops have to assume it's a bomb,
Now the "not to solve, but to deter" is definately the spin of the pro-cctv crowd, but are the cameras actually effective at detering crime? If so, the number of crimes committed would be lower in areas with a high density of cctv cameras than areas with a low densitiy of cctv cameras.
So what do the numbers actually say? Is the crime rate lower, or does the uk just have more footage for the television special "Crime Caught on Tape?"
A report by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (Nacro) which was based on Home Office research, revealed that of 24 studies carried out in city centres, only 13 showed crime had fallen since CCTV cameras were installed.
Crime rates rose significantly in four other cities.
Rachel Armitage, of Nacro's crime and social policy unit, said the cameras' effectiveness is often "over-stated".
So there's your answer. While not completely ineffective, it is not nearly as effective as it is often touted. So now the question is: "Could the money that has been spent on creating and maintaining the cctv networks have been spent on a combination of other, less invasive, methods to achieve an equal, or perhaps even lower, crime rate?"
I leave that for an exercise for the reader. If you happen to be politician, staffer, or anyone employed in the public policy arena, this exercise is manditory.
You're right that the H1-B debate is dominated by xenophobic fud. The majority of H1-B recipients end up getting a green card and then naturalize. Like pretty much all immigration, on the whole, they're a net-plus. I'm all for immigration. The US (and Canada have been built on immigration. The constant in American history is last generation's immigrant communities becoming fully assimilated and then ironically turning against the new wave of immigrants. ("We can't let the Catholics in!" "We can't let the Germans in! Afterall, they're not like the Catholics!" "We can't let it Italians in! They're nothing like the Germans!" and on, and on, and on....) The irony of this, is not lost on some of us.[*]
Unfortunately like all fud, there's a bit a truth to it. A friend of mine with an H1-B is getting screwed. I'll even tell you what company it is. It's LG. LG hired my friend with a masters, but pays my friend bachelors wages, thus making the position less than the prevailing wage. HR has even admitted this to my friend, when my friend talked to them about green card sponsorship. HR's answer? "Let's change your title to match your wages, and then we'll throw you in the slowline for green card okay?" (Apparently MS holders have their green card apps processed faster by USCIS)
Now my friend has waited way too long to begin this process, and I fear my friend will run out of time, and ICE will deport them back to Korea, a country she hasn't lived in for almost 15 years.
Now that sucks.
Does this anecdote prove that H1-Bs are an attempt to drive down wages? No, and I never intended it to be one. In fact this is the only instance of this I've seen, and I know several immigrants that have/had H1-Bs. What it does show is that some companies do use it like that. I suspect LG is doing it in this case, because they're a Korean company, with an office filled with Koreans, and my friend is a Korean-American woman, and figured that being "Korean" she'd fit in, and being a woman in a highly patriarchal environment, they could push her around, and take advantage of the situation. And given that my friend isn't nearly as assertive as she should be, they found the perfect victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hemployee.
Fuck LG. After how they're treating my friend, I would never recommend LG to anyone.
Anyway, Canada's plan to undermine the American economy is to flood our vending machines with their lesser valued coins. ("65cents for a coke, eh? More like 40cents you yankee bastard. This is one is for stealing the Oilers." *clink*)[**];)
[*]I'm waiting for Chinese New Year to get assimilated/co-opted by the dominate culture. Everyone likes Chinese food (Well, Chinese-American food anyway. I don't know anyone except the Chinese that like to eat pig ears.), it's a holiday where you can drink, and it has fireworks. It's like St. Patrick's Day, and Oktoberfest, and Cinco de Mayo, and the Fourth of July all rolled into one. So pour the Tsingtao and pass the M80s! ("This year's Chinese New Year's Celebration is brought to you by Dr. Michael Hsiang of the Plastic Surgery Institute. Ask about the special finger re-attachment discount running all this week!")
[**] Oh shit! I just did the currency conversion, and the actual conversion rate between USD and CAD is 1.00:1.014. Thanks a lot GWB!
The fact is you can have multiple windows displaying the same image already in gimp, simply saying "new view" on the one windows, gives you a second window, and yes. You can control them seperately.
Subwindows have always been a bad paradigm for gui apps. They're just too hard to use. ("Where's my window? Let me move this window out of the way, and then in this window scroll down to where it iconified it's windows. Now restore that subwindow. Hmm. I have to scroll that window. Now and scroll the main window over to where the subwindow restored. Now scroll that window. Damn. Out out of room. Scroll the main window over to get to the rest of the scrollbar in the subwindow. Now scroll the subwindow some more. Wait. Now the main window isn't showing that other subwindow. Scroll the main window back. Now rescroll the subwindow to recenter the area of interest. Whooo. I'm thirsty. Wait. What was it I was trying to do again?")
While in single windows, everything is on the same level, you can't lose windows like when the main window isn't showing the subwindow you're actually interested in. All the tiling, works as usual, so your example is moot, and most importantly, you don't have the confusing double-scrollbar phenomenon.
I'd say stay away from Adobe's UI. For being as popular as it is with nontechnical people, it's shit. It's absolutely attrocious. Nonstandard widgets. Cryptic dialogs complete with error codes in them. While it's not photoshop, illustrator has the worst tool pallet I've ever seen. My god! TWO ARROW TOOLS? WTF? One selects, and the other selects differently? Huh? No. That's a mistake.
People think photoshop's ui is good because people use photoshop. It's a powerful tool, no doubt, and it's popularity is a testament to it's power, but not it's ui. People that hold up the photoshop ui as some sort of gold standard are only doing that because that's what they're used to. Not because it's somehow better. It's network-effect plain and simple.
I suspect the real problem lies with the organizations.
Advertiser: We're really interested in sponsoring a competitive gaming league. Why should we sponsor yours instead one of these other six? WGL: Umm... What do you mean? Advertiser: Well. What makes you different? What sets you appart? WGL: Well... Uh... Umm...
Bogus story, I think. This entire story (which has appeared on a lot of general news sites, but no science news sites) is probably just a case of a reporter misunderstanding something a scientist said. Wow with the background of a layperson that could take the time to google up the UK NPL site, but not be bothered to read the linked article, I'm waiting with baited breath for your expert hypothesis! Please, continue!
According to the UK NPL site, fluctuations in the physical objects used to define fundamental metric units has always been a problem. Back when they were created, the ideal material for them seemed to be a hard, dense iridium-platinum alloy. This turned out to be a nasty mistake: the alloy is slightly radioactive, which means that some of its mass flies off into space all the time. No mystery there. Now let's go the article, and in particular the quote from Richard Davis, physicist with the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres France.
The mystery is that [the reference kilo and the dozens of copies] were all made of the same material, and many were made at the same time and kept under the same conditions, and yet the masses among them are slowly drifting apart. We don't really have a good hypothesis for it.
Certainly sounds like a misquote and everything is well understood to me! Kudos fm6! Kudos!
FYI: The double dash indicates where the body of a message ends and the.sig begins. It has never been used to indicate the end of the quoted text.
Now that the "how to write an electronic correspondence" lesson is over, let's move on to your comment.
Please explain how you would have a system that took in uniquely identified data points, determined how many points were in one of two classes, and yet couldn't tell you what points were in each class, even though it had to count points once -- and only once -- to return the counts.
For bonus points, please provide an application for this classifier that doesn't actually return the classifications of the data points.
Now 95% accuracy may not be good, but what's the confidence of the indentification in those 5% misclassified? There's a big difference between a system that says, "These 100 people are terrorists! It's a slam dunk! I've gone ahead and notified gitmo!" and one that says, "These 100 people are more likely than not to be terrorists. 95 of these we're highly confident in, and these 5, we're not nearly as sure, so we recommend more survellience to confirm."
While I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here, I do have some concerns about your dev story. Why would you even suspect such a thing? From the way you told that story, I got the distinct impression that it went something like this:
"Joe creeps me out." "Yeah." "I bet he looks at kiddie porn." "Yeah, I bet he does." "Let's find out!" "Okay!" *cue Mission: Impossible music* "Looks like he's not." "Yeah." "Let's get tacos!" "Okay!" *cue Mission: Impossible music*
Being creepy isn't really enough for me.
Here's two cheerful thoughts for you. One, all this proves is that he doesn't look at it at work. Two, not all pedos look/act obviously creepy. Some look and act like that neighbor of yours. You know the one I'm talking about.
RMS says: "However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him."
RMS means: "Thou shall have no other gods before me."
RMS is less and less relevant everyday. No doubt GPL3 will be picked up by his fanboys, but outside of them, it will be looked on as the time when RMS jumped the shark.
Let's be burtally honest here, the law is it at odds with itself when it comes to private communications at the workplace. Namely I'm talking about it's illegal for your employer to listen in on your phone coversations, but it's supposably legal for them to read your email. The main difference? Society's attitudes towards the individual and corporation's relationship when the laws were made.
So while you may be right that there's no "expectation of privacy" here, that doesn't mean that there's not an ethical issue. It merely means that you have the legal cover to read someone's email, it doesn't mean you should. Ethically, it's wrong. You shouldn't do it, no matter whether the courts say it's alright or not.
The courts are simply wrong when it comes to the issue of the expectation of privacy. People assume it is private. It may not be, but that doesn't mean that people don't act like it is. Thus, the ethical delima. Morally, there's no difference between reading someone's private postal mail, and someone's email. They're both communications in which you are not an intended recipient,
So how is one supposed to reconcile the legal and moral aspects here? Simple. If you don't have a reason to look at someone's email, then don't look at it.
I'm not saying Macross/Robotech is beloved, but let's be honest. The general public doesn't give a damn about anime. Especially anime that prominately features j-pop. (Toby, if you do this, you can kill that. In fact it's your duty to kill that. Thanks.) I can hear the audiences now, "So that cool robot is fighing a giant human? So what's with the girl singing kumbaya? This sucks."
Of course they'll change the valkyre! It's an F-14 for crying out loud! It looks dated. If they base the new valkyrie on anything, it would probably be an f-22 or a ucav or something, but they'll probably come up with an all original designs, like the planes in Stealth.
Robotech is a definately part of hollywood trend now to cash in on 80s pop culture. Transformers. Voltron, GI Joe. It's only a matter of time before Thundercats shows up on the list.
When someone says "Robotech" people think "Veritech." Of course, the Veritech was essential an F-14, which is now retired, so you're probably right that they'll redesign the veritech, probably to resemble f-22s or ucavs or something.
As far as the source material goes, I hope they ditch it. My god! Space giants? Pop idols singing kumbiya to stop wars? Shoot me with a particle beam cannon now.
Even as a kid the english version concert episodes made me want to clap my hands to my ears and roll on the floor in agony. So you're saying they stuck with the J-Pop?
He's no hero. He always let Cobra Commander -- the leader of a ruthless terrorist orgainization determined to rule the world -- get away. A real leader like George W. Bush would never let that happen.
Slashdot Mirror
"Intel Centrino with vPro Technology." Just rolls off the tounge doesn't it?
In 1936, the United States lagged behind the rest of the industrialized world in electrification. Vast swaths of the country simply didn't have electricity, because the large electric companies refused to serve the rural area, and furthermore argued that the government should provide the electrification they were unwilling to provide because that would be "unfair competition." How you can have unfair compeition when one side refuses to participate, is something only plutocrats can understand.
Thus the Rural Electrification Adminstration was created. In three years, the REA wired up 288,000 homes, prompting private companies to enter the market and lower their prices. By the end of 1939, 40% of rural homes had power, up from around 10% in 1930.
One of those houses that was wired was my grandmother's.
Electricity is one of the most important utilties in the modern world. The modern world simply doesn't exist without electricity. To imply that it is not essential like water or sewer in today's world is absurd. And don't change the argument, within cities, DSL is available in even the poorest areas. The poor in the US are still relatively affluent, and it is still very profitable for infrastructure companies to cover them. Broadband is sucks the US. It has for years now. Competition is nonexistent. We pay significantly more, and get significantly less. Our cellphone networks are a joke. Our telecom infrastructure sucks. Plain and simple.
Now everytime a merger took place the same story was told: By combining forces and leveraging synergies and yada yada yada, the bigger companies can offer more services, better compete, and thus benefit customers. Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
While it is true, to a point, that bigger companies can offer more and diverse services, the fact is that these new services, never materialized. Even at the time, it was unclear what services the merged company could/would provide that the smaller companies couldn't/wouldn't. What happened was completely predictable, and was predicted. The larger companies hunkered down, reduced spending in product developement, and increased profits. Exactly what happens in every market with inadequate competition.
This is actually a good example on why it is in the public interest to maintain competition. Capitalism is good. It's the best thing out there. It realizes that people are inherently greedy selfish bastards, and uses that as the engine of the economy by pitting opposing forces at each other. It's great. However. Pure, laissez faire capitalism (which is frequently promotoed) actually destorys competition. The goal of every company rightfully is to run the competition out buisness. To dominate the market, and become a monopoly, and then jack up the prices to further maximize profits. That's a good goal. But that's all it should be. A goal. Monopolies are a result of breakdown in competition. In math terms, capitalism is a greedy algorthm, that frequently find local minima. Breaking up trusts, resets the competition and encourages economic growth. It's good for everyone, except the trust being broke up, but that doesn't matter, since the economy as a whole benefits. Soon, committees will suggest getting filtering software. After all, public money can't subsidize smut. Or religion. Or hate speech. Pretty soon, the only unblocked sites will be Disney.com. What will the power users to then? Now this I absolutely agree with. Except perhaps disney.com. Afterall they have gay days, and there's the little mermaid thing. (Snopes) I'm thinking you'd be stuck with just FoxNews and and the 700 Club. Think of it as the Internet being regulated by the FCC, but with none of the protections to consumers provided with 19th and early 20th century technologies (e.g. voice telephony)
You're right that it's custom hardware and software, and thus more expensive simply because there's not the economy of scale like in mass produced goods.
/. about Land Warrior) always echo in my head: "Get a bullet in a paper map, and you have a map with a hole in it. Get a bullet in your whizbang electronic map, you have a paper weight."
That said. Your GPS iPaq counter example struck me as ironic, as that's exactly what the prototype was. (Hell, that's what the prototype has been for Blue Force Tracking for years now.)
Since the Army felt comfortable with field testing an iPaq in a combat zone, I suspect the deployed system isn't going to be that much different
The geek in me loves the idea of tracking everyone one on the battlefield on and sending encrypted coordinates back and forth and everything. Wearable computing. Augmented reality. It's all good in da hood baby. But at the same time, whenever I read about Land Warrior, these words (which I believe was actually posted many years ago here on
"It was a metaphor! I wish we lived in a time when I could challenge you to a duel."
At least Cobra Commander wasn't on that list. That would pique the attention of the NSA@AT&T.
"My god! Could it be? Yes! This is the voice of the leader of a ruthless terrorist organization determined to take over the world!"
You're right this isn't ATHF part two. That was obviously not a bomb, This wasn't obvious.
My first reaction was to assume that she wanted to provoke a reaction, too. I thought, "This has ''don't tase me bro'' written all over it." But from what I read on boingboing, from people that know her, she made the shirt a while ago and it reads "Course VI" (MIT speak for EE/CS), and the "explosive" is some sort of electroluminecent puffpaint. Apparently, she wears it everywhere.
In light of that info, I'm thinking she simply put on her hoodie, and went to the airport to pickup her boyfriend.
Should she have worn that shirt? Oh hell no! She should have known better, but honestly, I don't think she even thought about it.
Did the cops overreact? No. I while I don't think that it necessarily resembled a bomb, I do think that it was reasonable to investigate it further, which means the cops have to assume it's a bomb,
Well then you don't want an iphone. You want a laptop, cause that ain't never gonna happen.
So what do the numbers actually say? Is the crime rate lower, or does the uk just have more footage for the television special "Crime Caught on Tape?"
Drumroll please....
From a BBC report: dated August 3, 2002:
So there's your answer. While not completely ineffective, it is not nearly as effective as it is often touted. So now the question is: "Could the money that has been spent on creating and maintaining the cctv networks have been spent on a combination of other, less invasive, methods to achieve an equal, or perhaps even lower, crime rate?"
I leave that for an exercise for the reader. If you happen to be politician, staffer, or anyone employed in the public policy arena, this exercise is manditory.
You're right that the H1-B debate is dominated by xenophobic fud. The majority of H1-B recipients end up getting a green card and then naturalize. Like pretty much all immigration, on the whole, they're a net-plus. I'm all for immigration. The US (and Canada have been built on immigration. The constant in American history is last generation's immigrant communities becoming fully assimilated and then ironically turning against the new wave of immigrants. ("We can't let the Catholics in!" "We can't let the Germans in! Afterall, they're not like the Catholics!" "We can't let it Italians in! They're nothing like the Germans!" and on, and on, and on....) The irony of this, is not lost on some of us.[*]
;)
Unfortunately like all fud, there's a bit a truth to it. A friend of mine with an H1-B is getting screwed. I'll even tell you what company it is. It's LG. LG hired my friend with a masters, but pays my friend bachelors wages, thus making the position less than the prevailing wage. HR has even admitted this to my friend, when my friend talked to them about green card sponsorship. HR's answer? "Let's change your title to match your wages, and then we'll throw you in the slowline for green card okay?" (Apparently MS holders have their green card apps processed faster by USCIS)
Now my friend has waited way too long to begin this process, and I fear my friend will run out of time, and ICE will deport them back to Korea, a country she hasn't lived in for almost 15 years.
Now that sucks.
Does this anecdote prove that H1-Bs are an attempt to drive down wages? No, and I never intended it to be one. In fact this is the only instance of this I've seen, and I know several immigrants that have/had H1-Bs. What it does show is that some companies do use it like that. I suspect LG is doing it in this case, because they're a Korean company, with an office filled with Koreans, and my friend is a Korean-American woman, and figured that being "Korean" she'd fit in, and being a woman in a highly patriarchal environment, they could push her around, and take advantage of the situation. And given that my friend isn't nearly as assertive as she should be, they found the perfect victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hemployee.
Fuck LG. After how they're treating my friend, I would never recommend LG to anyone.
Anyway, Canada's plan to undermine the American economy is to flood our vending machines with their lesser valued coins. ("65cents for a coke, eh? More like 40cents you yankee bastard. This is one is for stealing the Oilers." *clink*)[**]
[*]I'm waiting for Chinese New Year to get assimilated/co-opted by the dominate culture. Everyone likes Chinese food (Well, Chinese-American food anyway. I don't know anyone except the Chinese that like to eat pig ears.), it's a holiday where you can drink, and it has fireworks. It's like St. Patrick's Day, and Oktoberfest, and Cinco de Mayo, and the Fourth of July all rolled into one. So pour the Tsingtao and pass the M80s! ("This year's Chinese New Year's Celebration is brought to you by Dr. Michael Hsiang of the Plastic Surgery Institute. Ask about the special finger re-attachment discount running all this week!")
[**] Oh shit! I just did the currency conversion, and the actual conversion rate between USD and CAD is 1.00:1.014. Thanks a lot GWB!
The fact is you can have multiple windows displaying the same image already in gimp, simply saying "new view" on the one windows, gives you a second window, and yes. You can control them seperately.
Subwindows have always been a bad paradigm for gui apps. They're just too hard to use. ("Where's my window? Let me move this window out of the way, and then in this window scroll down to where it iconified it's windows. Now restore that subwindow. Hmm. I have to scroll that window. Now and scroll the main window over to where the subwindow restored. Now scroll that window. Damn. Out out of room. Scroll the main window over to get to the rest of the scrollbar in the subwindow. Now scroll the subwindow some more. Wait. Now the main window isn't showing that other subwindow. Scroll the main window back. Now rescroll the subwindow to recenter the area of interest. Whooo. I'm thirsty. Wait. What was it I was trying to do again?")
While in single windows, everything is on the same level, you can't lose windows like when the main window isn't showing the subwindow you're actually interested in. All the tiling, works as usual, so your example is moot, and most importantly, you don't have the confusing double-scrollbar phenomenon.
I'd say stay away from Adobe's UI. For being as popular as it is with nontechnical people, it's shit. It's absolutely attrocious. Nonstandard widgets. Cryptic dialogs complete with error codes in them. While it's not photoshop, illustrator has the worst tool pallet I've ever seen. My god! TWO ARROW TOOLS? WTF? One selects, and the other selects differently? Huh? No. That's a mistake.
People think photoshop's ui is good because people use photoshop. It's a powerful tool, no doubt, and it's popularity is a testament to it's power, but not it's ui. People that hold up the photoshop ui as some sort of gold standard are only doing that because that's what they're used to. Not because it's somehow better. It's network-effect plain and simple.
I suspect the real problem lies with the organizations.
Advertiser: We're really interested in sponsoring a competitive gaming league. Why should we sponsor yours instead one of these other six?
WGL: Umm... What do you mean?
Advertiser: Well. What makes you different? What sets you appart?
WGL: Well... Uh... Umm...
Certainly sounds like a misquote and everything is well understood to me! Kudos fm6! Kudos!
FYI: The double dash indicates where the body of a message ends and the .sig begins. It has never been used to indicate the end of the quoted text.
Now that the "how to write an electronic correspondence" lesson is over, let's move on to your comment.
Please explain how you would have a system that took in uniquely identified data points, determined how many points were in one of two classes, and yet couldn't tell you what points were in each class, even though it had to count points once -- and only once -- to return the counts.
For bonus points, please provide an application for this classifier that doesn't actually return the classifications of the data points.
Now 95% accuracy may not be good, but what's the confidence of the indentification in those 5% misclassified? There's a big difference between a system that says, "These 100 people are terrorists! It's a slam dunk! I've gone ahead and notified gitmo!" and one that says, "These 100 people are more likely than not to be terrorists. 95 of these we're highly confident in, and these 5, we're not nearly as sure, so we recommend more survellience to confirm."
Being creepy isn't really enough for me.
Here's two cheerful thoughts for you. One, all this proves is that he doesn't look at it at work. Two, not all pedos look/act obviously creepy. Some look and act like that neighbor of yours. You know the one I'm talking about.
RMS says: "However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him."
RMS means: "Thou shall have no other gods before me."
RMS is less and less relevant everyday. No doubt GPL3 will be picked up by his fanboys, but outside of them, it will be looked on as the time when RMS jumped the shark.
Let's be burtally honest here, the law is it at odds with itself when it comes to private communications at the workplace. Namely I'm talking about it's illegal for your employer to listen in on your phone coversations, but it's supposably legal for them to read your email. The main difference? Society's attitudes towards the individual and corporation's relationship when the laws were made.
So while you may be right that there's no "expectation of privacy" here, that doesn't mean that there's not an ethical issue. It merely means that you have the legal cover to read someone's email, it doesn't mean you should. Ethically, it's wrong. You shouldn't do it, no matter whether the courts say it's alright or not.
The courts are simply wrong when it comes to the issue of the expectation of privacy. People assume it is private. It may not be, but that doesn't mean that people don't act like it is. Thus, the ethical delima. Morally, there's no difference between reading someone's private postal mail, and someone's email. They're both communications in which you are not an intended recipient,
So how is one supposed to reconcile the legal and moral aspects here? Simple. If you don't have a reason to look at someone's email, then don't look at it.
well at least its not live action.
I'm not saying Macross/Robotech is beloved, but let's be honest. The general public doesn't give a damn about anime. Especially anime that prominately features j-pop. (Toby, if you do this, you can kill that. In fact it's your duty to kill that. Thanks.) I can hear the audiences now, "So that cool robot is fighing a giant human? So what's with the girl singing kumbaya? This sucks."
Of course they'll change the valkyre! It's an F-14 for crying out loud! It looks dated. If they base the new valkyrie on anything, it would probably be an f-22 or a ucav or something, but they'll probably come up with an all original designs, like the planes in Stealth.
Robotech is a definately part of hollywood trend now to cash in on 80s pop culture. Transformers. Voltron, GI Joe. It's only a matter of time before Thundercats shows up on the list.
When someone says "Robotech" people think "Veritech." Of course, the Veritech was essential an F-14, which is now retired, so you're probably right that they'll redesign the veritech, probably to resemble f-22s or ucavs or something.
As far as the source material goes, I hope they ditch it. My god! Space giants? Pop idols singing kumbiya to stop wars? Shoot me with a particle beam cannon now.
He's no hero. He always let Cobra Commander -- the leader of a ruthless terrorist orgainization determined to rule the world -- get away. A real leader like George W. Bush would never let that happen.
Damn pinkos liberals! Like hell they wussify GI Joe's male make up with multiculturalism!
Now excuse me. I have get back to Quick-Kick, Roadblock, Spirit, and Lady Jaye.