The people who made the GUI, the mouse, the laser printer, ethernet, the Interpress pecursor to PostScript........... Xeroxed the Xerox when they made it available to consumers.
Because they are strong enough to escape from their cages?
I hope this was tongue in cheek and I'm an idiot.
Because they aren't going to put this, along with strength genes, into the same species, at the same time, until they realize that they need to do this. Unless they are stupid, these will be gradual steps with no idiotic guards who all of a sudden decide to abandon their posts.
This is very important for understanding how these genes interact, and actually work in an organism. We don't know how our genes work, not really. We are interested in why we have a folded brain with more surface area than most primate. We don't really know why you aren't sitting in a tree shitting on things and trying to figure out how to eat food safely.
If the answer isn't "God did it", then I want to know how we got from single celled organisms to primates to people.
I don't understand yet how my soul, if there is such a thing, has chosen this year and this body to inhabit. I don't yet know how I am a person, capable of replying to you.
I would like to know why I am a person, and Chumpy the Chimp is limited to being a Chimpanzee. Not that chimps are stupid - but they are by far different. And I want to know why.
PDF is the standard for e-Ink. Reflowable should be something that PDF supports, but it doesn't.
I think PDF needs to be better. It has a spot for glyph based output, and an optional spot for the text behind it. If Adobe is worth a shit, and it's not, but hypothetically, it would expose both the glyph output for display, and the text for re-flow.
It's already available, it's just too new to be relevant, apparently.
PDF has the capability, but most PDFs don't have this baked in. Either they were created by morons, or by people who want their content to be marginally readable.
PDF is a way to present data. How people implement that data, or attempt to restrict, is a different thing.
And I will now wash all of myself with lysol for complimenting the security hole of the last 15 years or more.
For the record, these are normal magazine PDFs, and they look great. No conversion.
The only PDFs I've had problems with are the size of Halliday, Fundamentals of Physics. Sometimes the display doesn't match the publisher's intent, but it is readable. On 6 year old tech.
"Mindlessly wrong" is a phrase that means something. There are lots of mis-steps that were mindfully done.
Given this distinction, I would like at least a few hints.
UAC in Vista was meant to force developers to develop a proper manifest for the restricted functions. Most developers fucked that up, and most people thing UAC was the worst thing about Vista.
Vista drivers failed miserably, because they did not properly implement security concerns.
There were mindful decisions. Obviously I'm asking for some mindless ones.
For the record, I can't corroborate, but this is likely based on what I know.
But it doesn't explain the recursive delete problems.
If I cache the file list (counting things, making a list, and then using the results to show estimations), and the underlying folders don't change, then I should have no issue recursively deleting folders unless something interferes.
Could be a bug, could be a context menu thing, could be an open application subscribing to too many change events.
The standard, according to Petzold, is to respond to user input if possible, and it almost always is. That they have ignored the person who documented random pages in a file cabinet and filled in the missing parts, is a tragedy. That they did it in the most visible part of the OS UI is unforgivable.
Does it maintain a cache? I had assumed this was the case:
Action sets a timer, action happens, timer fires, no folder change has been applied yet that is visible to userland (aka Explorer), so no change is reflected.
What I have seen, however, is this.:
Move initiated, buffer overflow, and no move actually happens. So it isn't a timer failure.
Recursive deleting should work, if implemented correctly. Sometimes the files are all deleted, but one folder remains, and that is persistent. It is not read-only, deleting the folder again works.
Either something is interfering, or it's a shite implementation.
If there is a cache that is being operated on, I'd be interested in further understanding it. Otherwise you are just thinking out loud.
I have seen this behavior a few times. Have you seen the one where you move stuff from one folder to another one and there is a stack overflow arround SetWindowCallback()?
I assume you will tell me how you've never seen it, so it must be user error or never happened? Well, I have never watched someone manage around 150 Win7 machines at work, so in my experience you are wrong.
Windows Explorer is really, really complicated - overly complicated. And it does not behave perfectly under all usage scenarios. It has plugin style architecture for all manner of stuff which could cause problems. File compression, source control, crappy icon packs, context menus, it goes on and on.
There is no end to the possible causes, without debugging both the explorer and the plug-ins or add-ons.
As an administrator, you may not have the same understanding of a computer as a home user, or a work user.
The fact that you have not seen it is not interesting. Do you like the icons? That's what we are concerned about. As a mythical 150 computer admin, are the icons something you can administer without shooting yourself in the kidneys with an upside down can of keyboard cleaner?
Are you a digital native? If not, you are not relevant to this study, and your opinion is not relevant to this discussion.
If you are a digital native, you did not address the "for pleasure" part of the study.
Do you believe that your experience is representative of the population studied? That your one life is an approximation of the studied population? If so, you really should have led off with that. Try again.
E-ink came and went. I know some dedicated e-readers use something else, but I'm really curious how many people just have not even looked at some sort of e-ink.
Books, music, magazines in PDF - almost everything is amazingly readable.
I last read every Heinlein I could find, and he used some odd words. I could figure them out by context, but the real meaning is so much more interesting.
And few people later go find the definition. So many people have no idea what a whole pile of their vocabularies mean, really. And it gets mis-used.
And now, the word "literally" literally means absolutely nothing. "Beg the question" is not a logical fallacy. A instead of a good horror movie, a bad comedy can be called "terrible".
I accept that words lose their meaning, but I don't have to support the means by which words lose their meaning.
You can be amazingly concise and write or speak with specific clarity in the English language, just because of the amazing selection of words available. And although I'm familiar with several languages, I won't be embarrassed to be wrong about this, but almost every language seems to have synonyms with different shades of meaning.
but is that actually learning? Did they lose track of the narrative by this distraction?
You sound like you are passionate about something very specific here and have not shared that something, or you are completely ignorant. Yes, it is learning. And I don't know if they lost track. If they have that short of an attention span then they need practice not losing track.
In what way is this different from having a dictionary next to you in case someone uses an unfamiliar word? Oh wait, don't answer that, it's faster.
Especially with my reader, the one that people seem to forget about. E-ink with offline dictionary. I can't accidentally get trapped in TV Tropes or Wikipedia clicking on the next interesting thing, and I don't have LED/LCD fatigue, and I'm not kept awake from the blue component of the white lighting.
You need data and specifics, or you're just posting an instinctive knee-jerk reaction based on something someone else said once that resonated with you.
"Learn words by context" leads to too many problems for me to take a proponent seriously. Especially in the context of a literature student. A literature student should not ever do that. A literature student should look up the definition, establish which one fits precisely, especially given the era and style of the work, since words evolve. And then if they lost the narrative, they go back and find it.
You can't move on unless you understand what the author was communicating. I have lost track of the plots of novels because I misunderstood a word, and verified it later. Very few, but they didn't quite have the impact they should have.
I also wrote this, but I wrote it in Pascal in 1987, beating the author by 3 years unless his rounding function is broken.
Mine also sucked.
Still, procedural generation remains the next big thing, and applying it to something as simple as a text-based map, limited to two dimensions and "wall" or "not a wall" is nostalgic for many, and interesting for those who did not do the same project in some fashion.
The need for multiple cores did not exist - it just happened to be the hardware available, I assume. It was probably not optimized for parallelization, so it probably did not use more than one core.
I'm sorry that your accomplishment at the age of 13 spoiled your understanding of someone who did almost exactly the same thing, but that's exactly what happened here. You and at least 3 other idiot moderators.
Self-selected readership who, at one point in their lives, were probably complimented and/or tormented for being intelligent, thus making it a component of their personality.
Preconceived notions which survive evidential disproving, making it easy to discard any summary based on the headline, or any article based on the summary.
Also, a rotating vocal minority who read a few words and immediately have to type their thoughts, because no one could possibly understand the topic more than them - as evidenced by their grade school experiences.
Welcome to dotslash.
It is exceedingly difficult for most people to routinely consider that other people exist outside of their own experience, and the amount of personal anecdote offered here as a rebuttal of statistics is a testament to just that sort of short mindedness.
In other words, these people are human, and flawed in the same ways that humans are. They just don't realize it unless you point it out in sometimes increasingly caustic replies depending on the nature of their transgression.
I added streets to osm and google maps had the data a few weeks later. I know it my osm data because I didn't know one street name, left it as the initial unique identifier, and that's what showed up.
I assume google has a priority list, and uses navteq or the other atlas whatever before osm data, if present. If not, use osm.
Isn't further comment supposed to come from us, the commentators?
The reaction you have about hypotheticals is largely irrelevant, since you mention posters and readers here. No matter what, someone is going to post something insanely stupid, and someone else is going to moderate it positively. It happens on nearly every story, unless it is just not interesting at all to anyone. Then we get at least 40 comments all sucking each others' dicks.
So post some facts yourself, or fuck yourself sideways with a rusty rake. Do you have a point, or are you going to just talk to yourself for a good long while? What is your objection here, to this specific story?
The study was by a woman (and her team I assume) looking at comments about her previous study about how society views gender. The conclusion was that men discriminate and women feel discriminated against.
She looked at these comments, attempting to determine if the commentator was male or female, and broadly classify the comment's content as accepting or dismissing the conclusion.
I get a really strong sense of selection bias (self selection), and the author generally taking the position that the original study's conclusion is true. While I don't dispute that, it seems really easy to make a mistake when classifying comments directed at your work, and therefore being very personal, and possibly making bad decisions about methodology.
I can in no way support this study, even though its conclusions are fairly obviously correct.
I have always understood it to be an external observation. A seemingly normal person plus anonymity can appear to be a total fuckwad. That obviates any jekyll-and-hyde personality change.
In other words, almost exactly your last sentence.
It also represents the case where someone who is only a partial fuckwad in real life appears "normal" in person and as a complete fuckwad on the internet. That is a more typical scenario, given that the number of partial fuckwards is on a sliding scale, and only a few of those are the total fuckwads. And you dis say "was a fuckwad" instead of "was a total fuckwad".
Given that presumption, anonymity exacerbates the fuckwad's fuckwadity, rather than simply uncovering it as you suggest, which is the point.
That's the whole point - you have your own unqualified opinion, and everyone else (the statistical "everyone") operates using the opposite as being an unstated assumption.
When you say "everyone is a medical expert", I understand you to mean that people assert the things they understand and hold true, regardless of whether it has any basis or has been debunked. And if I look at SystemD comments, as in a sibling post, it's a bunch of sound bites that are really just fronts for the opinion "I disagree".
And, of course, it all boils down to a person's feeling that what they believe is true, is true. Men in this study do not acknowledge a bias and women do, men believe that gender role division is a natural outcome and women do not. And, so many people here can't believe that the default state is something other than scepticism - because that's how their understanding of the world works.
And changing these understandings and behaviors is like farting in a hurricane.
In conclusion, QI has not yet located compelling evidence that Henry Ford is responsible for this quotation. The expression of the concept underlying the saying apparently evolved over a period of decades with an initial cite by 1930. The record is still incomplete, so it is best to view this post as a snapshot of the most salient evidence known to QI.
That's what your link says, not "he never said it".
And then you say that it's important to be accurate.
And then two morons moderate you positively.
Is it any wonder I created a username solely to tell people they are wrong and should not ever post anything on the internet until they are old enough?
There were 6 paragraphs prior to that quote that explain why. You can disagree with it, but "why" is answered, and the case is certainly made for the meaning that people commonly use, which isn't exactly every single person.
Here's an example, the sentence right before the one that was quoted:
If someone in marketing or finance or HR has an idea for a new app, they should be able to take matters in their own hands.
No, that's the worst idea ever. There's a reason we have change control in a nearly infinite possibility of combinations, and there are plenty of other things wrong that I'm sure you can identify.
If you want me to keep thinking for you, keep being an idiot. No, wait, then I'll have to uphold my end of the bargain. Just stop posting until you have something to contribute.
That sounds like something diceslot would do. Well, obviously wouldn't, but would, you know what I mean.
And hell no, that's a nice rake. I've been keeping it very rusty, just for one specific asshole. I don't know if you have tried to maintain a rusty rake, but believe me, it is almost a full time job making sure that rake is rusty enough, and that the handle won't jut break off wherever it feels it might want to. The handle must be disciplined.
I'd actually like to know how best to discipline a rusty rake handle, if it were from a frequent contributor. Since you disclaim being a frequent contributor, you opinion is invalid, and your rake is not yours.
Slashdot Mirror
The people who made the GUI, the mouse, the laser printer, ethernet, the Interpress pecursor to PostScript........... Xeroxed the Xerox when they made it available to consumers.
Because they are strong enough to escape from their cages?
I hope this was tongue in cheek and I'm an idiot.
Because they aren't going to put this, along with strength genes, into the same species, at the same time, until they realize that they need to do this. Unless they are stupid, these will be gradual steps with no idiotic guards who all of a sudden decide to abandon their posts.
This is very important for understanding how these genes interact, and actually work in an organism. We don't know how our genes work, not really. We are interested in why we have a folded brain with more surface area than most primate. We don't really know why you aren't sitting in a tree shitting on things and trying to figure out how to eat food safely.
If the answer isn't "God did it", then I want to know how we got from single celled organisms to primates to people.
I don't understand yet how my soul, if there is such a thing, has chosen this year and this body to inhabit. I don't yet know how I am a person, capable of replying to you.
I would like to know why I am a person, and Chumpy the Chimp is limited to being a Chimpanzee. Not that chimps are stupid - but they are by far different. And I want to know why.
If it starts with rats, I'm good with that.
Are you literate? If so, read my post and the parent post again. If not, stop posting on the internet, and stop talking while you're at it.
PDF is the standard for e-Ink. Reflowable should be something that PDF supports, but it doesn't.
I think PDF needs to be better. It has a spot for glyph based output, and an optional spot for the text behind it. If Adobe is worth a shit, and it's not, but hypothetically, it would expose both the glyph output for display, and the text for re-flow.
It's already available, it's just too new to be relevant, apparently.
PDF has the capability, but most PDFs don't have this baked in. Either they were created by morons, or by people who want their content to be marginally readable.
PDF is a way to present data. How people implement that data, or attempt to restrict, is a different thing.
And I will now wash all of myself with lysol for complimenting the security hole of the last 15 years or more.
For the record, these are normal magazine PDFs, and they look great. No conversion.
The only PDFs I've had problems with are the size of Halliday, Fundamentals of Physics. Sometimes the display doesn't match the publisher's intent, but it is readable. On 6 year old tech.
"Mindlessly wrong" is a phrase that means something. There are lots of mis-steps that were mindfully done.
Given this distinction, I would like at least a few hints.
UAC in Vista was meant to force developers to develop a proper manifest for the restricted functions. Most developers fucked that up, and most people thing UAC was the worst thing about Vista.
Vista drivers failed miserably, because they did not properly implement security concerns.
There were mindful decisions. Obviously I'm asking for some mindless ones.
For the record, I can't corroborate, but this is likely based on what I know.
But it doesn't explain the recursive delete problems.
If I cache the file list (counting things, making a list, and then using the results to show estimations), and the underlying folders don't change, then I should have no issue recursively deleting folders unless something interferes.
Could be a bug, could be a context menu thing, could be an open application subscribing to too many change events.
The standard, according to Petzold, is to respond to user input if possible, and it almost always is. That they have ignored the person who documented random pages in a file cabinet and filled in the missing parts, is a tragedy. That they did it in the most visible part of the OS UI is unforgivable.
Does it maintain a cache? I had assumed this was the case:
Action sets a timer, action happens, timer fires, no folder change has been applied yet that is visible to userland (aka Explorer), so no change is reflected.
What I have seen, however, is this.:
Move initiated, buffer overflow, and no move actually happens. So it isn't a timer failure.
Recursive deleting should work, if implemented correctly. Sometimes the files are all deleted, but one folder remains, and that is persistent. It is not read-only, deleting the folder again works.
Either something is interfering, or it's a shite implementation.
If there is a cache that is being operated on, I'd be interested in further understanding it. Otherwise you are just thinking out loud.
I have seen this behavior a few times. Have you seen the one where you move stuff from one folder to another one and there is a stack overflow arround SetWindowCallback()?
I assume you will tell me how you've never seen it, so it must be user error or never happened? Well, I have never watched someone manage around 150 Win7 machines at work, so in my experience you are wrong.
Windows Explorer is really, really complicated - overly complicated. And it does not behave perfectly under all usage scenarios. It has plugin style architecture for all manner of stuff which could cause problems. File compression, source control, crappy icon packs, context menus, it goes on and on.
There is no end to the possible causes, without debugging both the explorer and the plug-ins or add-ons.
As an administrator, you may not have the same understanding of a computer as a home user, or a work user.
The fact that you have not seen it is not interesting. Do you like the icons? That's what we are concerned about. As a mythical 150 computer admin, are the icons something you can administer without shooting yourself in the kidneys with an upside down can of keyboard cleaner?
Are you a digital native? If not, you are not relevant to this study, and your opinion is not relevant to this discussion.
If you are a digital native, you did not address the "for pleasure" part of the study.
Do you believe that your experience is representative of the population studied? That your one life is an approximation of the studied population? If so, you really should have led off with that. Try again.
E-ink came and went. I know some dedicated e-readers use something else, but I'm really curious how many people just have not even looked at some sort of e-ink.
Books, music, magazines in PDF - almost everything is amazingly readable.
I would like to see the same thing.
I last read every Heinlein I could find, and he used some odd words. I could figure them out by context, but the real meaning is so much more interesting.
And few people later go find the definition. So many people have no idea what a whole pile of their vocabularies mean, really. And it gets mis-used.
And now, the word "literally" literally means absolutely nothing. "Beg the question" is not a logical fallacy. A instead of a good horror movie, a bad comedy can be called "terrible".
I accept that words lose their meaning, but I don't have to support the means by which words lose their meaning.
You can be amazingly concise and write or speak with specific clarity in the English language, just because of the amazing selection of words available. And although I'm familiar with several languages, I won't be embarrassed to be wrong about this, but almost every language seems to have synonyms with different shades of meaning.
You sound like you are passionate about something very specific here and have not shared that something, or you are completely ignorant. Yes, it is learning. And I don't know if they lost track. If they have that short of an attention span then they need practice not losing track.
In what way is this different from having a dictionary next to you in case someone uses an unfamiliar word? Oh wait, don't answer that, it's faster.
Especially with my reader, the one that people seem to forget about. E-ink with offline dictionary. I can't accidentally get trapped in TV Tropes or Wikipedia clicking on the next interesting thing, and I don't have LED/LCD fatigue, and I'm not kept awake from the blue component of the white lighting.
You need data and specifics, or you're just posting an instinctive knee-jerk reaction based on something someone else said once that resonated with you.
"Learn words by context" leads to too many problems for me to take a proponent seriously. Especially in the context of a literature student. A literature student should not ever do that. A literature student should look up the definition, establish which one fits precisely, especially given the era and style of the work, since words evolve. And then if they lost the narrative, they go back and find it.
You can't move on unless you understand what the author was communicating. I have lost track of the plots of novels because I misunderstood a word, and verified it later. Very few, but they didn't quite have the impact they should have.
I also wrote this, but I wrote it in Pascal in 1987, beating the author by 3 years unless his rounding function is broken.
Mine also sucked.
Still, procedural generation remains the next big thing, and applying it to something as simple as a text-based map, limited to two dimensions and "wall" or "not a wall" is nostalgic for many, and interesting for those who did not do the same project in some fashion.
The need for multiple cores did not exist - it just happened to be the hardware available, I assume. It was probably not optimized for parallelization, so it probably did not use more than one core.
I'm sorry that your accomplishment at the age of 13 spoiled your understanding of someone who did almost exactly the same thing, but that's exactly what happened here. You and at least 3 other idiot moderators.
Self-selected readership who, at one point in their lives, were probably complimented and/or tormented for being intelligent, thus making it a component of their personality.
Preconceived notions which survive evidential disproving, making it easy to discard any summary based on the headline, or any article based on the summary.
Also, a rotating vocal minority who read a few words and immediately have to type their thoughts, because no one could possibly understand the topic more than them - as evidenced by their grade school experiences.
Welcome to dotslash.
It is exceedingly difficult for most people to routinely consider that other people exist outside of their own experience, and the amount of personal anecdote offered here as a rebuttal of statistics is a testament to just that sort of short mindedness.
In other words, these people are human, and flawed in the same ways that humans are. They just don't realize it unless you point it out in sometimes increasingly caustic replies depending on the nature of their transgression.
Do you have a specific link? Because the ones I saw basically said that Google is taking legal advantage of the Open part of Open Street Map.
Again, I submit data to an Open platform, and some asshole decides to Open the platform.
Is this not allowed? If not, could you post something more relevant?
That's funny, you don't sound like Chaucer.
Are you a gay girl or a knave girl? Because you are obviously a girl.
Unless maybe language changes due to usage, which is exactly what happens.
Eat a dick, kill yourself, stop being stupid. Choose at least one, and preferably 3 or more.
Not clear in the sibling comments is that word has its own diff, in the revision area. The differences show as tracked changes.
Obviously not a solution here, but it seems lots of people aren't aware of it.
I added streets to osm and google maps had the data a few weeks later. I know it my osm data because I didn't know one street name, left it as the initial unique identifier, and that's what showed up.
I assume google has a priority list, and uses navteq or the other atlas whatever before osm data, if present. If not, use osm.
Isn't further comment supposed to come from us, the commentators?
The reaction you have about hypotheticals is largely irrelevant, since you mention posters and readers here. No matter what, someone is going to post something insanely stupid, and someone else is going to moderate it positively. It happens on nearly every story, unless it is just not interesting at all to anyone. Then we get at least 40 comments all sucking each others' dicks.
So post some facts yourself, or fuck yourself sideways with a rusty rake. Do you have a point, or are you going to just talk to yourself for a good long while? What is your objection here, to this specific story?
The study was by a woman (and her team I assume) looking at comments about her previous study about how society views gender. The conclusion was that men discriminate and women feel discriminated against.
She looked at these comments, attempting to determine if the commentator was male or female, and broadly classify the comment's content as accepting or dismissing the conclusion.
I get a really strong sense of selection bias (self selection), and the author generally taking the position that the original study's conclusion is true. While I don't dispute that, it seems really easy to make a mistake when classifying comments directed at your work, and therefore being very personal, and possibly making bad decisions about methodology.
I can in no way support this study, even though its conclusions are fairly obviously correct.
I have always understood it to be an external observation. A seemingly normal person plus anonymity can appear to be a total fuckwad. That obviates any jekyll-and-hyde personality change.
In other words, almost exactly your last sentence.
It also represents the case where someone who is only a partial fuckwad in real life appears "normal" in person and as a complete fuckwad on the internet. That is a more typical scenario, given that the number of partial fuckwards is on a sliding scale, and only a few of those are the total fuckwads. And you dis say "was a fuckwad" instead of "was a total fuckwad".
Given that presumption, anonymity exacerbates the fuckwad's fuckwadity, rather than simply uncovering it as you suggest, which is the point.
That's the whole point - you have your own unqualified opinion, and everyone else (the statistical "everyone") operates using the opposite as being an unstated assumption.
When you say "everyone is a medical expert", I understand you to mean that people assert the things they understand and hold true, regardless of whether it has any basis or has been debunked. And if I look at SystemD comments, as in a sibling post, it's a bunch of sound bites that are really just fronts for the opinion "I disagree".
And, of course, it all boils down to a person's feeling that what they believe is true, is true. Men in this study do not acknowledge a bias and women do, men believe that gender role division is a natural outcome and women do not. And, so many people here can't believe that the default state is something other than scepticism - because that's how their understanding of the world works.
And changing these understandings and behaviors is like farting in a hurricane.
That's what your link says, not "he never said it".
And then you say that it's important to be accurate.
And then two morons moderate you positively.
Is it any wonder I created a username solely to tell people they are wrong and should not ever post anything on the internet until they are old enough?
There were 6 paragraphs prior to that quote that explain why. You can disagree with it, but "why" is answered, and the case is certainly made for the meaning that people commonly use, which isn't exactly every single person.
Here's an example, the sentence right before the one that was quoted:
No, that's the worst idea ever. There's a reason we have change control in a nearly infinite possibility of combinations, and there are plenty of other things wrong that I'm sure you can identify.
If you want me to keep thinking for you, keep being an idiot. No, wait, then I'll have to uphold my end of the bargain. Just stop posting until you have something to contribute.
That sounds like something diceslot would do. Well, obviously wouldn't, but would, you know what I mean.
And hell no, that's a nice rake. I've been keeping it very rusty, just for one specific asshole. I don't know if you have tried to maintain a rusty rake, but believe me, it is almost a full time job making sure that rake is rusty enough, and that the handle won't jut break off wherever it feels it might want to. The handle must be disciplined.
I'd actually like to know how best to discipline a rusty rake handle, if it were from a frequent contributor. Since you disclaim being a frequent contributor, you opinion is invalid, and your rake is not yours.
Still, hugs.