Trying over and over and over to tell people they are "childish" just makes you look childish. If it's "childish" then it will stand on it's own that way. People like you posting this sort of knee-jerk response every single time somebody says M$ just looks like desperation.
In addition "MS" is no more valid of an abbreviation than "M$". The only proper abbreviation is "MSFT" as that is the stock symbol. Otherwise Microsoft wants the name spelled out. "MS" is the stock symbol for Morgan Stanley, and the abbreviation for Mississippi, and for Multiple Sclerosis and many other things.
LED Christmas lights use vastly less power than incandescent. That should be pretty obvious: they allow you to chain 20 LED strings in a row, and the wires are obviously cheap and thin. That would never be safe with incandescent.
I still don't get it. That's like claiming I should not be taxed on the profits of my business because I had to purchase a machine to run the business and the money spent on that machine is "tied up" therefore the money produced by using that machine should not be taxed. (and don't try to bring up depreciation, since that is equivalent to your stock *losing* value, not gaining. If your stock gains it's like you got some income and the machine is still worth it's entire initial price).
The few serious attempts to explain this actually amount to arguments that the capital gains calculation should take inflation into account, which I agree with. But the convoluted reasoning to twist this into the "taxed twice" so that the tax is reduced for even short-term investments that are a millisecond long (and the reduced tax is still applied to inflation on long-term investments) is pretty bad.
Anybody who reads the actual story will realize that this is a fight with out-of-state companies, not with the state. They want to extract a bunch of money from California and will probably take this to the courts to try to get it.
Basically California offered a tax break to in-state entrepreneurs that it did not offer to people who lived out-of-state. For some reason this was declared unconstitutional. The outside groups are now claiming that unless California charges the in-state people retroactively then they must get refunded the same amount. I assume the bill is some sort of legal thing to undermine this claim. Note that everybody is paying the same tax now.
You earn money in some way, and you are taxed on it. Then you take that money and decide to save it. You start an investment account and invest in stocks. Then you have to pay capital gains tax on what to you is a retirement account. You were taxed when you earned the money and then you were taxed again when you try to withdraw it from your investment account simply because the stock increased in value.
Sorry, I only see the increase in value being taxed. That is NOT the same money being taxed twice, it is NEW money.
I fully agree with your later statement that inflation should be taken into account (except no refunds if the resulting calculated tax is less than zero). But 99% of the complaints are about short-term investments which inflation does not effect. I do not think trading some money with somebody in one day should somehow make your income taxed less depending on whether it is classified as a "capital gain" or not. And inflation does not change prices in that short period of time as it is not a continuous slope.
It should all be taxed the same. Anything you sell you are allowed to subtract the inflated value of the original purchase price (except clamped so you cannot claim you lost money). This is part of your income. Taxing different forms of income differently is government market manipulation just like taxing larger sodas differently and should be hated by libertarians.
That's just silly. The money is not "taxed again". What is taxed is the *gains* you make from the investment. Now there are good arguments for taxing these gains at a lower percentage than income produced by your own labor, but claiming the "money is taxed twice" is a stupid thing to say.
Actually I would be ok with middle-mouse-paste doing a move if the selection is in the same widget. If you hold down ctrl when doing the middle-mouse-paste it does a copy. This then would make it exactly the same as drag & drop.
Good point, however this only happens if the source and destination are the same widget, otherwise it does a copy. And if you hold down ctrl while dragging it does a copy inside the same widget. I tested this in Thunderbird, kedit, gedit, Chrome, and FIrefox. I also believe this is standard behavior on Windows, and possible OS/X.
So you could say it is the same as ctrl+drag+drop.
left click to drag, right click to raise: That does not match any user interface I have ever seen, and right click often is used to popup a context menu.
Clients are not supposed to just raise their windows for random reasons. And it would not be hard to make the window manager ignore raises that are not immediately after a click. The purpose is to *stop* raises, not create more of them. The reason for clients to raise the window is to provide an obvious and trivial method to *NOT* raise the window. Instead of communicating huge gobs of info to the window manager exactly outlining what areas are non-raising clicks, it just has to not call raise after the click.
But worse, select/middle click DOESN'T use the same clipboard as Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V. Plus, there is no way to replace existing text with paste, since selecting it nukes your clipboard.
Those two sentences are contradictory so you obviously have not been trying a correct working system.
In a working client (ie not a Windows program trying to fake this, and not a X program written in 1990), they do NOT use the same clipboard. This is certainly not "worse" because it solves exactly the problem you state in the second one: you can replace highlighted text with Ctrl+C/V, EXACTLY THE SAME AS WINDOWS!!!!!!!!!!
If you select text in two windows the last one wins.
Your question about "synchronize the clipboards" indicates your mind is polluted with the Windows simulation you were talking about before. Do not base anything on what the Windows programs do, try a modern client on a modern Linux. Your question has nothing to do with reality.
On Linux the way you highlight and replace text is you highlight it and type ctrl+V. This requires you to type Ctrl+C to copy the selected text. SAME AS WINDOWS!!!!!!!
You can replace text but it is tricky. The main thing is to realize that middle-click is identical to the "drop" of drag & drop. If the client is written correctly you can select text, then drag & drop other text atop it to replace it. This is far from perfect (in particular there is no way to do this inside the same window) but the same can be said of attempting to do replacement on Windows using drag & drop.
The emulation in Windows is broken. There is no way for clients in Windows to send between each other than to use the single clipboard, so the only way to make anything approaching middle-click is to make selection do Ctrl+C and middle click do Ctrl+V. This is worse than useless and is why you think the middle-click is a problem. (this was also a huge problem for Linux programs about 15 years ago but has pretty much been fixed now, it is the source of "copy and paste do not work on Linux" meme).
In a correctly implemented scheme, as long as you don't click the middle mouse button, it makes ZERO difference in behavior. It is absolutely invisible, and there is no question about "which one will be pasted by ctrl+v" as the answer is identical to a system that does not have middle click.
Try a real working implementation, because all your questions make no sense, you are instead reading the broken implementation you have encountered into a problem with the underlying idea.
Not "yank" or "paste": I think it should be called "drop". In most cases the result is identical to what happens if you dragged the selected text and dropped it at the same point. In fact UI guidelines should define middle-click should act identical to a drag+drop of the most recently selected item (or maybe the most recently selected item that will work at this point as a drop).
But how does it compare to the Windows model of control-C copy and control-V paste?
It has NOTHING to do with these. Proper applications will make ctrl+c/v work exactly like Windows does, whether or not the user hits the middle mouse button.
The middle-mouse paste is *DRAG AND DROP*. Except you can move windows around, raise them, and even launch applications between the "drag" and the "drop". Everybody (both users and developers) has to get this fact through their thick skulls. Don't call it "middle mouse paste", call it "middle mouse DROP". And any application where the middle mouse click does something different than pushing down on the selection and dragging it and dropping it at the same point is broken.
Yes click-raising is a HUGE problem and the Gnome developers are pretending it isn't.
It is obvious that you cannot do drag & drop if when you press to drag it raises the window that you clicked on. They are currently making HUGE kludges to try to fix this, involving clients having to tell the window manager what areas are drag targets, when the trivial change of not raising the window would work. The client can *RAISE IT'S OWN WINDOW* as I and others have been saying over and over and over and over for perhaps 15 years now, but they refuse to believe that...
Wayland supports middle-mouse paste. The clients decide what to do on the click, but they can use the existing drag & drop mechanism to aquire the last selection and paste it.
The real problem with a lot of designers and users is the failure to figure out that middle-mouse-paste is actually an improved version of drag & drop.Too many people think it is a replacement for copy + paste. This is as stupid as if using drag & drop always changed the clipboard to the dragged item.
Ideally selecting something and then middle-click should be EXACTLY the same as dragging that selected item and releasing it at the point that the middle click happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the developer may use the software, but does not consider the bug worth fixing because it does not get in their way.
Paying to get the bug fixed may work in this case.
Trying over and over and over to tell people they are "childish" just makes you look childish. If it's "childish" then it will stand on it's own that way. People like you posting this sort of knee-jerk response every single time somebody says M$ just looks like desperation.
In addition "MS" is no more valid of an abbreviation than "M$". The only proper abbreviation is "MSFT" as that is the stock symbol. Otherwise Microsoft wants the name spelled out. "MS" is the stock symbol for Morgan Stanley, and the abbreviation for Mississippi, and for Multiple Sclerosis and many other things.
LED Christmas lights use vastly less power than incandescent. That should be pretty obvious: they allow you to chain 20 LED strings in a row, and the wires are obviously cheap and thin. That would never be safe with incandescent.
All of which can and have been taken to court a "cruel and inhuman punishment".
Citation needed. Examples where the plantiff is an life-term inmate and actually won the case, please.
Do you crinkle in fear each time a car comes at you from the opposite direction?
Every time I drive in England, yes.
I still don't get it. That's like claiming I should not be taxed on the profits of my business because I had to purchase a machine to run the business and the money spent on that machine is "tied up" therefore the money produced by using that machine should not be taxed. (and don't try to bring up depreciation, since that is equivalent to your stock *losing* value, not gaining. If your stock gains it's like you got some income and the machine is still worth it's entire initial price).
The few serious attempts to explain this actually amount to arguments that the capital gains calculation should take inflation into account, which I agree with. But the convoluted reasoning to twist this into the "taxed twice" so that the tax is reduced for even short-term investments that are a millisecond long (and the reduced tax is still applied to inflation on long-term investments) is pretty bad.
Arrays start at zero and go through size-1.
Anybody who reads the actual story will realize that this is a fight with out-of-state companies, not with the state. They want to extract a bunch of money from California and will probably take this to the courts to try to get it.
Basically California offered a tax break to in-state entrepreneurs that it did not offer to people who lived out-of-state. For some reason this was declared unconstitutional. The outside groups are now claiming that unless California charges the in-state people retroactively then they must get refunded the same amount.
I assume the bill is some sort of legal thing to undermine this claim. Note that everybody is paying the same tax now.
I really do not buy the second version at all:
You earn money in some way, and you are taxed on it. Then you take that money and decide to save it. You start an investment account and invest in stocks. Then you have to pay capital gains tax on what to you is a retirement account. You were taxed when you earned the money and then you were taxed again when you try to withdraw it from your investment account simply because the stock increased in value.
Sorry, I only see the increase in value being taxed. That is NOT the same money being taxed twice, it is NEW money.
I fully agree with your later statement that inflation should be taken into account (except no refunds if the resulting calculated tax is less than zero). But 99% of the complaints are about short-term investments which inflation does not effect. I do not think trading some money with somebody in one day should somehow make your income taxed less depending on whether it is classified as a "capital gain" or not. And inflation does not change prices in that short period of time as it is not a continuous slope.
It should all be taxed the same. Anything you sell you are allowed to subtract the inflated value of the original purchase price (except clamped so you cannot claim you lost money). This is part of your income. Taxing different forms of income differently is government market manipulation just like taxing larger sodas differently and should be hated by libertarians.
That's just silly. The money is not "taxed again". What is taxed is the *gains* you make from the investment. Now there are good arguments for taxing these gains at a lower percentage than income produced by your own labor, but claiming the "money is taxed twice" is a stupid thing to say.
"It's waterproof!"
"...uh, no it isn't..."
"Well then, it's water resistant!"
"...uh, no it isn't..."
"Then it's water absorbant!"
Actually I would be ok with middle-mouse-paste doing a move if the selection is in the same widget. If you hold down ctrl when doing the middle-mouse-paste it does a copy. This then would make it exactly the same as drag & drop.
Does Gnome copy text when you drag and drop?
Good point, however this only happens if the source and destination are the same widget, otherwise it does a copy. And if you hold down ctrl while dragging it does a copy inside the same widget. I tested this in Thunderbird, kedit, gedit, Chrome, and FIrefox. I also believe this is standard behavior on Windows, and possible OS/X.
So you could say it is the same as ctrl+drag+drop.
left click to drag, right click to raise: That does not match any user interface I have ever seen, and right click often is used to popup a context menu.
Clients are not supposed to just raise their windows for random reasons. And it would not be hard to make the window manager ignore raises that are not immediately after a click. The purpose is to *stop* raises, not create more of them. The reason for clients to raise the window is to provide an obvious and trivial method to *NOT* raise the window. Instead of communicating huge gobs of info to the window manager exactly outlining what areas are non-raising clicks, it just has to not call raise after the click.
Maybe middle mouse it could be described as "a shortcut for moving the mouse over to where the selection is, drag and drop it back here".
Think of it as drag & drop in one click, that is much more correct.
But worse, select/middle click DOESN'T use the same clipboard as Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V. Plus, there is no way to replace existing text with paste, since selecting it nukes your clipboard.
Those two sentences are contradictory so you obviously have not been trying a correct working system.
In a working client (ie not a Windows program trying to fake this, and not a X program written in 1990), they do NOT use the same clipboard. This is certainly not "worse" because it solves exactly the problem you state in the second one: you can replace highlighted text with Ctrl+C/V, EXACTLY THE SAME AS WINDOWS!!!!!!!!!!
If you select text in two windows the last one wins.
Your question about "synchronize the clipboards" indicates your mind is polluted with the Windows simulation you were talking about before. Do not base anything on what the Windows programs do, try a modern client on a modern Linux. Your question has nothing to do with reality.
On Linux the way you highlight and replace text is you highlight it and type ctrl+V. This requires you to type Ctrl+C to copy the selected text. SAME AS WINDOWS!!!!!!!
You can replace text but it is tricky. The main thing is to realize that middle-click is identical to the "drop" of drag & drop. If the client is written correctly you can select text, then drag & drop other text atop it to replace it. This is far from perfect (in particular there is no way to do this inside the same window) but the same can be said of attempting to do replacement on Windows using drag & drop.
The emulation in Windows is broken. There is no way for clients in Windows to send between each other than to use the single clipboard, so the only way to make anything approaching middle-click is to make selection do Ctrl+C and middle click do Ctrl+V. This is worse than useless and is why you think the middle-click is a problem. (this was also a huge problem for Linux programs about 15 years ago but has pretty much been fixed now, it is the source of "copy and paste do not work on Linux" meme).
In a correctly implemented scheme, as long as you don't click the middle mouse button, it makes ZERO difference in behavior. It is absolutely invisible, and there is no question about "which one will be pasted by ctrl+v" as the answer is identical to a system that does not have middle click.
Try a real working implementation, because all your questions make no sense, you are instead reading the broken implementation you have encountered into a problem with the underlying idea.
A LOT of programs on Windows will do something when you press the middle mouse button so you cannot use it like this. Why not click in the title bar?
Not "yank" or "paste": I think it should be called "drop". In most cases the result is identical to what happens if you dragged the selected text and dropped it at the same point. In fact UI guidelines should define middle-click should act identical to a drag+drop of the most recently selected item (or maybe the most recently selected item that will work at this point as a drop).
Why does she not drag & drop the text on Windows?
But how does it compare to the Windows model of control-C copy and control-V paste?
It has NOTHING to do with these. Proper applications will make ctrl+c/v work exactly like Windows does, whether or not the user hits the middle mouse button.
The middle-mouse paste is *DRAG AND DROP*. Except you can move windows around, raise them, and even launch applications between the "drag" and the "drop". Everybody (both users and developers) has to get this fact through their thick skulls. Don't call it "middle mouse paste", call it "middle mouse DROP". And any application where the middle mouse click does something different than pushing down on the selection and dragging it and dropping it at the same point is broken.
Yes click-raising is a HUGE problem and the Gnome developers are pretending it isn't.
It is obvious that you cannot do drag & drop if when you press to drag it raises the window that you clicked on. They are currently making HUGE kludges to try to fix this, involving clients having to tell the window manager what areas are drag targets, when the trivial change of not raising the window would work. The client can *RAISE IT'S OWN WINDOW* as I and others have been saying over and over and over and over for perhaps 15 years now, but they refuse to believe that...
Wayland supports middle-mouse paste. The clients decide what to do on the click, but they can use the existing drag & drop mechanism to aquire the last selection and paste it.
The real problem with a lot of designers and users is the failure to figure out that middle-mouse-paste is actually an improved version of drag & drop.Too many people think it is a replacement for copy + paste. This is as stupid as if using drag & drop always changed the clipboard to the dragged item.
Ideally selecting something and then middle-click should be EXACTLY the same as dragging that selected item and releasing it at the point that the middle click happened.