I am an American. I live in America. I couldn't give a rat's ass about a non-American court's opinion of me if I never plan to go there. Does Google have a tangible, physical presence in Italy? If not, why should they care?
But how well does that work for substring matches? "Darn it, who do I know in the 650 area code?" It's incredibly annoying to me that there's no way of easily answering that query, given that it's entered in the local database of my iPhone and that Spotlight should be able to find it.
as I grep through the flatfile of contacts I have acumulated
Man, that's one thing I wish I could do on my iPhone. Whenever I see a phone number that looks familiar, I'd like to be able to search for it in my contacts list. That's a pretty simple request, right?
Invalid criticism. Take it up with the Firefox developers. Firstly, installing an extension is a once-in-a-while thing for most people, so they'll almost never hit this. Second of all, shutting an app down when a user wants to go on using it is clearly not very bright. Your issue demonstrates an annoying interaction between GNOME Shell and Firefox, but it's Firefox's design issue to solve. If it really bugs you, use Chromium.
First, an observation: you must be a Gnome developer, because no one else can be that condescending while telling someone that they're using their computer the wrong way. Second, the behavior you're defending would cause me to put a bullet in the computer if I was stuck with it. On every desktop I've used, I've set up {virtual desktops/spaces/tags/whatever} so that my browser is in #1, shells are in #2, Emacs is in #3, email is in #4, etc, and so that each one of those spaces is a keystroke away. When I want to check my email, I press the chord that gets me to space #4, et voila: I'm looking at my inbox. If stuff kept moving around every time I ctrl+alt+T to open a console window, my entire workflow would go to hell quickly and I'd be installing a different desktop within minutes. Screw giving it a week or so; I'd be giving it however long it took me check on Google that this was the "correct" and expected behavior. That is, if I could find my browser.
Gnome: The Desktop For Everyone (Who Is A Gnome Developer).
We don't want to be the subject of an experimentet about how we "should be working."
This, above all else. I don't mind having default settings that suck for the way I want to work. I mind incredibly when the options to fix it are deliberately removed. KDE 4.0 was kind of annoying in that a lot of things didn't work. Honestly, I was OK with that! Even if it wasn't ideal at the moment, at least they were moving in a direction I liked, and things that were missing were absent because they hadn't been added in yet. In contrast, I've never seen a stance as arrogant as Gnome's nearly-constant claims that I'm Doing Stuff Wrong and that they know best. For the most trivial of examples, consider the missing settings option in gnome-screensaver. Short explanation? "Kiss our butt. Our way is correct, end of story."
Gnome is dead to me. My inner conspiracy theorist finds it easy to imagine that Miguel got that Microsoft job, and his private title is "Fracturer Of Linux Desktops".
I switched to an awesome desktop with a mix of Gnome and KDE applets. It's not the perfect desktop for everyone, but it's getting pretty darn close to being perfect for me.
I think that those people who take the time, effort, money and energy to create complicated software algorithms should be rewarded.
Why do you hate mathematics? Specifically, why do you wish Newton (or Leibniz) had exclusive rights to their algorithms so that no one could build upon them? Why do you wish that Einstein was able to patent his theory of relativity so that physics could be put on hold for 30-years-or-however-long? What do you hate so much about cosmology that you wish Hawking was the only one legally allowed to do it?
I will never understand the level of hatred and contempt for science you'd have to have to truly believe that algorithms should be patentable.
But you can't be on a tech site and claim Apple is better than all their competitors. [...] You can't the me the spec on an iPad 2 are better than the Xoom.
Apparently, we also can't tell you that no one but us geeks cares about specs. "Normal" people want to know one thing: will this do what I want it to? A big chunk of computer, phone, and electronics buyers have decided that Apple stuff does what they want it to.
Almost all the money comes from someone trying to impress someone else with how much they spent... Not being seen paying the bill would kind of defeat that purpose.
You've never been to a fine restaurant, have you. (Note: that wasn't phrased as a question.) There's a restaurant I always try to visit when I'm in town because the food is absolutely amazing. From the best salad dressing in the known universe, to the steak that I could cut with a fork, to a chocolate souffle soaked with thick cream, the entire meal is brilliantly executed. It's not even particularly expensive, although certainly more than McDonald's. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass who does or doesn't see me eating there. I'd be perfectly happy to have the place to myself, although that'll never happen.
Much like "why tip if you'll never see that waiter again?" So you can be seen tipping by your date, of course.
Because regardless of how screwed up I think the idea is, that waiter depends on my tip as part of his paycheck, and the local custom is to pay waiters on the side for their services. I've never stiffed a waiter (except for 2-3 times when one really deserved it) whether I was eating alone, on a date, or with my family, regardless of whether I ever planned to visit that restaurant again.
The fact that you believe people only act civilly because they don't want to be embarrassed says a lot more about you than it does society.
It wasn't valid back in the 90s either. You have grown older and your perspective has changed.
Oh, I disagree. Examples: people who "knew" that every PPC was faster than every Pentium. People who "knew" that memory protection was for people who used less mature operating systems. People who laughed at Windows for crashing, but rebooted their Macs regularly to "keep them running smoothly". People who could explain in painstaking detail why it would be impossible to port something as amazing as Photoshop to Windows, and why no one would buy it if they did.
Look, man, I used an Amiga at the time. I know a fanboy when I see one, and the Mac had 'em. Now? Not so much.
Google keeps all of it's software entirely secret, so they don't really have any use for software patents. It's all upside for them.
You're subject to patent law even if you only use your creations internally. Obligatory car analogy: if a computer patented a type of diagnostic equipment, Ford can't use it in their factory without clearing it with the patent holder - even if Ford never distributes their infringing, internally-built equipment.
I think you're ignoring the OP's main point: the cult-like dedication.
I'm ignoring it, too, because it's wrong. I'm not an Apple "fanboy" or "cultist", but I have an iPhone because I like it and it works well. My boss (who is no way, shape, or form an Apple "fanboy" or "cultist") has an iPad and uses it regularly because he likes it and it works well. When I was at PyCon, half the attendees had MacBooks. While I imagine that there were some Apple fanboys in the large crowd, the people I talked to were long-time developers who loved the tools available to them on OS X, and used MacBooks - wait for it!, wait for it! - because they like them and they work well.
I remember the cult-like followers back in the 90s. I worked with a few, and they were incredibly annoying. I think that meme needs to die, though, because it hasn't been valid in a long time. It's easy for people to dismiss Apple users as mindless sheep. It's harder to recognize that most of them are regular, un-fanatical people who just happen to find a product they like using.
What they're trying to do is allow search engines, Twitter, and other social media to drive traffic to them, but at the same time not allow people to regularly read their content for free.
Here you go:
if request['referer'] in (twitter, facebook) or 'Googlebot' in request['agent']: allow_access()
Since I only spent 3 weeks writing that, I'll just charge $25 million for it. Such a deal!
You said Twitter is like a centralized RSS systems, but it's not. I can reply to people I'm following on Twitter, and I've gotten responses from all sorts of people from local reporters to famous authors.
Oh, and I should mention that "@" only hides messages from "uninterested" parties when it's the first character in a message. If you write something like "I follow @slashdot on Twitter.", then all of your followers will see the message. If you write "@slashdot I follow you on twitter.", then no one will see it unless they also follow @slashdot or they've navigated to your profile and they're reading your entire public timeline.
Putting "@username" in the middle of a message is kind of the idiom for open messages on Twitter.
Any app that uses the statuses/mentions API call (which is every app I've ever seen) will receive a list of every message that contains the string "@username" somewhere in it. The Twitter version of "reply all" is to write message like "@user1 @user2 Hi, guys!". In fact, that's what every app I've seen does when you hit "reply all": it starts a new message containing every username that was in the message you're replying to (minus your own).
The etiquette for mentions is the same as email: reply to anything you feel like you should reply to, ignore what you don't.
Turning them off is client-specific, but every one I've seen lets you disable the "mention" notification in some way.
The conversation thing is client-specific, too. Keep in mind that you only conversations including you, or which originate with and mention people you know, will show up in your stream of messages. But say you're interested in a particular user and you sneak a peek at their timeline to see if you want to follow them. If you tap on a message, many recent clients will expand it to show the conversation by recursing back through the list of replies.
Yep. They're kinda like a set of statements to be used indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.
No. They are exactly a set of values to be fed into a set of statements that are designed to interpret them. "Statement" has specific meanings in law, programming, and logic, none of which map to "a data series".
Slashdot Mirror
When I see one anywhere. Example use case: when I had a landline, getting home and wondering who called from a number showing on Caller ID.
I am an American. I live in America. I couldn't give a rat's ass about a non-American court's opinion of me if I never plan to go there. Does Google have a tangible, physical presence in Italy? If not, why should they care?
But how well does that work for substring matches? "Darn it, who do I know in the 650 area code?" It's incredibly annoying to me that there's no way of easily answering that query, given that it's entered in the local database of my iPhone and that Spotlight should be able to find it.
as I grep through the flatfile of contacts I have acumulated
Man, that's one thing I wish I could do on my iPhone. Whenever I see a phone number that looks familiar, I'd like to be able to search for it in my contacts list. That's a pretty simple request, right?
Invalid criticism. Take it up with the Firefox developers. Firstly, installing an extension is a once-in-a-while thing for most people, so they'll almost never hit this. Second of all, shutting an app down when a user wants to go on using it is clearly not very bright. Your issue demonstrates an annoying interaction between GNOME Shell and Firefox, but it's Firefox's design issue to solve. If it really bugs you, use Chromium.
First, an observation: you must be a Gnome developer, because no one else can be that condescending while telling someone that they're using their computer the wrong way. Second, the behavior you're defending would cause me to put a bullet in the computer if I was stuck with it. On every desktop I've used, I've set up {virtual desktops/spaces/tags/whatever} so that my browser is in #1, shells are in #2, Emacs is in #3, email is in #4, etc, and so that each one of those spaces is a keystroke away. When I want to check my email, I press the chord that gets me to space #4, et voila: I'm looking at my inbox. If stuff kept moving around every time I ctrl+alt+T to open a console window, my entire workflow would go to hell quickly and I'd be installing a different desktop within minutes. Screw giving it a week or so; I'd be giving it however long it took me check on Google that this was the "correct" and expected behavior. That is, if I could find my browser.
Gnome: The Desktop For Everyone (Who Is A Gnome Developer).
We don't want to be the subject of an experimentet about how we "should be working."
This, above all else. I don't mind having default settings that suck for the way I want to work. I mind incredibly when the options to fix it are deliberately removed. KDE 4.0 was kind of annoying in that a lot of things didn't work. Honestly, I was OK with that! Even if it wasn't ideal at the moment, at least they were moving in a direction I liked, and things that were missing were absent because they hadn't been added in yet. In contrast, I've never seen a stance as arrogant as Gnome's nearly-constant claims that I'm Doing Stuff Wrong and that they know best. For the most trivial of examples, consider the missing settings option in gnome-screensaver. Short explanation? "Kiss our butt. Our way is correct, end of story."
Gnome is dead to me. My inner conspiracy theorist finds it easy to imagine that Miguel got that Microsoft job, and his private title is "Fracturer Of Linux Desktops".
I switched to an awesome desktop with a mix of Gnome and KDE applets. It's not the perfect desktop for everyone, but it's getting pretty darn close to being perfect for me.
I think that those people who take the time, effort, money and energy to create complicated software algorithms should be rewarded.
Why do you hate mathematics? Specifically, why do you wish Newton (or Leibniz) had exclusive rights to their algorithms so that no one could build upon them? Why do you wish that Einstein was able to patent his theory of relativity so that physics could be put on hold for 30-years-or-however-long? What do you hate so much about cosmology that you wish Hawking was the only one legally allowed to do it?
I will never understand the level of hatred and contempt for science you'd have to have to truly believe that algorithms should be patentable.
But you can't be on a tech site and claim Apple is better than all their competitors. [...] You can't the me the spec on an iPad 2 are better than the Xoom.
Apparently, we also can't tell you that no one but us geeks cares about specs. "Normal" people want to know one thing: will this do what I want it to? A big chunk of computer, phone, and electronics buyers have decided that Apple stuff does what they want it to.
Why? NYT didn't.
Almost all the money comes from someone trying to impress someone else with how much they spent... Not being seen paying the bill would kind of defeat that purpose.
You've never been to a fine restaurant, have you. (Note: that wasn't phrased as a question.) There's a restaurant I always try to visit when I'm in town because the food is absolutely amazing. From the best salad dressing in the known universe, to the steak that I could cut with a fork, to a chocolate souffle soaked with thick cream, the entire meal is brilliantly executed. It's not even particularly expensive, although certainly more than McDonald's. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass who does or doesn't see me eating there. I'd be perfectly happy to have the place to myself, although that'll never happen.
Much like "why tip if you'll never see that waiter again?" So you can be seen tipping by your date, of course.
Because regardless of how screwed up I think the idea is, that waiter depends on my tip as part of his paycheck, and the local custom is to pay waiters on the side for their services. I've never stiffed a waiter (except for 2-3 times when one really deserved it) whether I was eating alone, on a date, or with my family, regardless of whether I ever planned to visit that restaurant again.
The fact that you believe people only act civilly because they don't want to be embarrassed says a lot more about you than it does society.
It wasn't valid back in the 90s either. You have grown older and your perspective has changed.
Oh, I disagree. Examples: people who "knew" that every PPC was faster than every Pentium. People who "knew" that memory protection was for people who used less mature operating systems. People who laughed at Windows for crashing, but rebooted their Macs regularly to "keep them running smoothly". People who could explain in painstaking detail why it would be impossible to port something as amazing as Photoshop to Windows, and why no one would buy it if they did.
Look, man, I used an Amiga at the time. I know a fanboy when I see one, and the Mac had 'em. Now? Not so much.
Google keeps all of it's software entirely secret, so they don't really have any use for software patents. It's all upside for them.
You're subject to patent law even if you only use your creations internally. Obligatory car analogy: if a computer patented a type of diagnostic equipment, Ford can't use it in their factory without clearing it with the patent holder - even if Ford never distributes their infringing, internally-built equipment.
I think you're ignoring the OP's main point: the cult-like dedication.
I'm ignoring it, too, because it's wrong. I'm not an Apple "fanboy" or "cultist", but I have an iPhone because I like it and it works well. My boss (who is no way, shape, or form an Apple "fanboy" or "cultist") has an iPad and uses it regularly because he likes it and it works well. When I was at PyCon, half the attendees had MacBooks. While I imagine that there were some Apple fanboys in the large crowd, the people I talked to were long-time developers who loved the tools available to them on OS X, and used MacBooks - wait for it!, wait for it! - because they like them and they work well.
I remember the cult-like followers back in the 90s. I worked with a few, and they were incredibly annoying. I think that meme needs to die, though, because it hasn't been valid in a long time. It's easy for people to dismiss Apple users as mindless sheep. It's harder to recognize that most of them are regular, un-fanatical people who just happen to find a product they like using.
Fixed in commit #3:
That'll be $3.7 million, please.
What they're trying to do is allow search engines, Twitter, and other social media to drive traffic to them, but at the same time not allow people to regularly read their content for free.
Here you go:
Since I only spent 3 weeks writing that, I'll just charge $25 million for it. Such a deal!
You said Twitter is like a centralized RSS systems, but it's not. I can reply to people I'm following on Twitter, and I've gotten responses from all sorts of people from local reporters to famous authors.
Google Reader's interface kicks Twitter's ass anyway.
My version of Google Reader doesn't have a "reply" button.
My date is pretty worthless, even to me.
Don't expect a goodnight kiss from her with that attitude.
I may not be a legal expert, but at least I'm not the one mistaking "statements" and "data". Are you an HTML programmer, perhaps?
Can we claim Godwin here? I have a feeling Samsung Support doesn't refer to itself as the SS.
No. The National Socialists don't own the registered trademark on "SS".
Oh, and I should mention that "@" only hides messages from "uninterested" parties when it's the first character in a message. If you write something like "I follow @slashdot on Twitter.", then all of your followers will see the message. If you write "@slashdot I follow you on twitter.", then no one will see it unless they also follow @slashdot or they've navigated to your profile and they're reading your entire public timeline.
Putting "@username" in the middle of a message is kind of the idiom for open messages on Twitter.
Any app that uses the statuses/mentions API call (which is every app I've ever seen) will receive a list of every message that contains the string "@username" somewhere in it. The Twitter version of "reply all" is to write message like "@user1 @user2 Hi, guys!". In fact, that's what every app I've seen does when you hit "reply all": it starts a new message containing every username that was in the message you're replying to (minus your own).
The etiquette for mentions is the same as email: reply to anything you feel like you should reply to, ignore what you don't.
Turning them off is client-specific, but every one I've seen lets you disable the "mention" notification in some way.
The conversation thing is client-specific, too. Keep in mind that you only conversations including you, or which originate with and mention people you know, will show up in your stream of messages. But say you're interested in a particular user and you sneak a peek at their timeline to see if you want to follow them. If you tap on a message, many recent clients will expand it to show the conversation by recursing back through the list of replies.
Yep. They're kinda like a set of statements to be used indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.
No. They are exactly a set of values to be fed into a set of statements that are designed to interpret them. "Statement" has specific meanings in law, programming, and logic, none of which map to "a data series".
The only thing I want to read in 140 words or less is the weather.
You're welcome.