Seventh, oh and this really pisses me off, PLEASE PLEASE when I hit the reload button - I want it to actually reload the data from the URL over the internet not reload a bunch of cache!!!
Hold the Control key while clicking Refresh. Clicking Refresh without the Control key does reload the data "from the URL", but all the other URLs referenced by the page you're reloading (images, stylesheets, external JavaScript, etc.) may not be (especially if you're behind a caching proxy server). The reason for this is, if you don't need to reload all the bazillion other files and only need to reload the main content of the page you're looking at, clicking Refresh is MUCH faster than it would be if you reloaded everything.
The equivalent in Netscape/Mozilla-based browsers is Shift-Reload. In IE for Mac, Option-Refresh.
In Safari for Mac OS X, clicking the Reload button twice in a row does it (the first time reloads the page only; the second time reloads everything). I'm not sure if this sends the same headers Mozilla does with Shift-Reload though, so it may not work perfectly behind a proxy; I know it didn't, and Dave Hyatt told me he'd have somebody look at that, but I'm not sure if it actually works now or not.
Can someone explain to me why an university needs its students' SSN?
Tax purposes, I assume; I took a couple classes at a community college last year, and they sent me Form 1098-T so I could claim a deduction on my taxes. Presumably the IRS also gets a copy of this (so they can verify I didn't lie about it), and they need my SSN for that.
and in an university which has a number of foreign students, i.e., who do NOT have a SSN to start with, they most certainly already have an alternative means of identifying their students (their own ID number scheme)
Foreign students aren't paying taxes to the IRS, generally.
But yes, schools do have alternate systems in place for students who choose not to provide their SSN. I don't know how the tax thing works out, but schools do generally say an SSN is not required to enroll, and have alternate instructions for how to fill out their forms.
Why the American people didn't run them out on a rail for that alone, I will never understand.
Because we always just let our elected representatives do that sort of thing for us... and there's a Republican majority in Congress.
My question is this: Some rich, powerful members of the Saud and bin Laden family, some Saudi agents, and some Pakistani agents must have had wind of the attack, and yet they feared the wrath of America so little that they never tried to stop it or tip off American intelligence. Why is that?
Their judgment was correct, wasn't it? They're not facing any consequences from us.
Monday morning Congress will pass the Lorem Ipsum Homeland Patriotism Act,
No no, it has to be an easily-pronounceable acronym, e.g. the Lorem Ipsum National Defense Act, or... I dunno, that one's not very good, but you get the idea. If at all possible, the acronym should be a word related to the idea you want people to think when they head the name of the bill. Remember the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act".
This sounds like a Mac. I just bought my mom a Mac and was very surprised and impressed when we plugged in the printer. Plugging it in was literally the only step.
If they can do it, we can too.
Especially since Mac OS X's printing system is based on CUPS.
Thanks for your thorough reply! It's interesting that you consider Linux a competitor moreso than Windows.
There was a Windows port of QuickTime long before iTunes came along to sell iPods and music. I was kinda thinking that a Linux port of QuickTime might be done for the same reasons as the Windows port - to encourage the use of Apple's media formats, even on a competing platform. Porting iTunes just seemed the next logical step after that, which is why I mentioned it.
As for not releasing any software for Linux: the Linux ports of Darwin Streaming Server and Rendezvous work quite nicely (although the Rendezvous stuff is a bit awkward to use).
If we shipped our internal Linux ports, they would fail to work properly...
You have internal Linux ports? Hmmmmm!...if somebody were to take Linux and dump that stupid license mess...
Are you referring to the "viral" restrictions of the GPL, or to confusion resulting from different pieces of software being made available under different licenses, or SCO's $600 deal, or something else?
Thanks again for explaining the thinking; I'll try to pass it on the next time somebody asks. And I will continue to explain to people why Apple will never release an x86 port of Mac OS X, and why the fact that Darwin's userspace is largely ported from FreeBSD doesn't mean that porting Photoshop from OSX to Linux would be trivial.
And as long as I'm asking silly questions, can you ask somebody in retail what's up with the still-not-announced Pioneer Place store? There have been job postings for a year and a half now...
Does anyone really care about the 5 people who use.ogg?
No, but I wasn't talking about them; I was talking about the thousands of people who think.ogg support is important even though they don't use it themselves.
No, iTunes will keep its own database for the obvious reason: It's cross-platform. We have to ship an iTunes for Windows, which means we have to have an internal database anyway.
Speaking of cross-platform, any chance of Apple porting QuickTime (and then iTunes) to Linux? And adding Ogg Vorbis support (natively, with visualizer support) to shut people up? (Nobody who uses iTunes actually cares, but Slashdotters do bitch about Ogg not being supported.)
Wait this could be useful. Think of the pr0n. That way'll I'll never confuse goatse.cz clips with Christmas vacation movies with the inlaws. Because that could be embarassing if I mix up those two.
You can already (in both XP and OSX) view images in a particular folder as thumbnails, although Windows tends to do this by default if it notices a lot of pictures in the folder, while Mac OS X only does what you tell it to.
Exactly. I saw several items on that list that specifically address complaints I've had about 10.3 (e.g. iCal birthdays, group management and profile editing in iChat, Safari bookmark search, per-account signatures in Mail).
A quality photo manager, excellent chat client, a usable mail application, decent file management (the one thing all modern OS lack), dvd playback, multimedia playback suite,
Excellence and usability are matters of opinion, but they do include MSN Messenger, Outlook Express, and Windows Media Player (except where prohibited by antitrust rulings), and pretty much every DVD-ROM drive is bundled with software (the one I recently bought for one of my Linux servers did) so the fact that it's not included with the OS is basically irrelevant.
I never thought about that though, I just went with it when the time felt right.
Well no kidding - you're a girl, so you don't really have to worry about being prosecuted for it (you just have to make sure that if you like the guy, nobody finds out).
This does not negate the fact that there are people out there who take advantage of young teenagers. Teenagers who are underage should be protected from these people (even if they are only 23 years old).
While I completely agree with you, I just want to point out that a confused teenager can VERY easily fall in love with an adult who is NOT trying to take advantage of them. All you have to do is just listen to their problems and give constructive advice - perfectly innocent - and before you know it you've got an underage girl infatuated with you who would be absolutely crushed if you pushed her away. Sounds exactly what happened here (the article mentioned she confided in him about her parents' divorce). However, the right thing to do at that point is to go ahead and crush her, NOT meet for sex.
It's probably better not to start talking to her in the first place - as soon as you find out she's only 15, that's your cue to leave. But at 23, it's hardly surprising that he hadn't figured this out yet.
Of course a lot of girls will simply lie about their age, so you're back to crushing them as soon as they let it slip.
When we were that age, girls didn't chat online, so we didn't meet them.
(Actually I did meet a girl from a BBS when I was about 14; we went to a laser tag arena. She was huge, and I didn't really talk to her after that. But now there are attractive girls using the Internet.)
It's unfair to call the younger one in this relationship a "victim" and especially unfair to call the older one a "pedophile" or even a sexual predator when all signs seem to point to the opposite; a consenting and apparently rather close relationship.
The reason it's called the "age of consent" is, even though the younger party is "consenting", they're not old enough to legally be able to give consent, because (in theory) they're not mature enough to 1) fully appreciate the long-term ramifications of their actions, and 2) really be in control of their own emotional state. Children and teenagers tend to be VERY easy to manipulate into FEELING a certain way (not just doing certain things).
Unfortunately, the point at which one becomes mature enough to handle that sort of thing varies from person to person, and the law needs to be constant. So, the line is drawn at a particular age, rather than a particular level of maturity.
I'm glad it's working out for you, though. Congratulations on getting married.:-)
It's not that I was attracted to someone below the age of "maturity", it's that I was attracted to maturity below the age of consent. I guess this is as good a first post as any.
The trick with this is, people mature in different areas at different rates, so someone who seems mature in some areas is still immature in other areas. You think of them as being mature, and then they do or say something unexpected, and you remember just how young they are...
I'll be impressed if you can make it work long-term. Being 9 years apart isn't that amazing (my own parents were 10 years apart), but 17 is awfully young to be entering into anything serious. But maybe that's OK.
The way I see it: the girl strings along the guy for two years, promises to meet, changes her mind and two years later slaps the guy with this!
She didn't change her mind; his coworker stopped him from going. So, he stood her up. Now she's suing him for emotional distress, and suing AOL because she can (wouldn't you?).
But the problem is, 1) he shouldn't have let their relationship go the direction it did in the first place, and 2) he should have done his job.
Slashdot Mirror
Seventh, oh and this really pisses me off, PLEASE PLEASE when I hit the reload button - I want it to actually reload the data from the URL over the internet not reload a bunch of cache!!!
Hold the Control key while clicking Refresh. Clicking Refresh without the Control key does reload the data "from the URL", but all the other URLs referenced by the page you're reloading (images, stylesheets, external JavaScript, etc.) may not be (especially if you're behind a caching proxy server). The reason for this is, if you don't need to reload all the bazillion other files and only need to reload the main content of the page you're looking at, clicking Refresh is MUCH faster than it would be if you reloaded everything.
The equivalent in Netscape/Mozilla-based browsers is Shift-Reload. In IE for Mac, Option-Refresh.
In Safari for Mac OS X, clicking the Reload button twice in a row does it (the first time reloads the page only; the second time reloads everything). I'm not sure if this sends the same headers Mozilla does with Shift-Reload though, so it may not work perfectly behind a proxy; I know it didn't, and Dave Hyatt told me he'd have somebody look at that, but I'm not sure if it actually works now or not.
Would putting better graphics on the Titanic's deckchairs have kept anyone on board?
Keep in mind that a lot of people bought tickets to sail on the Titanic.
Can someone explain to me why an university needs its students' SSN?
Tax purposes, I assume; I took a couple classes at a community college last year, and they sent me Form 1098-T so I could claim a deduction on my taxes. Presumably the IRS also gets a copy of this (so they can verify I didn't lie about it), and they need my SSN for that.
and in an university which has a number of foreign students, i.e., who do NOT have a SSN to start with, they most certainly already have an alternative means of identifying their students (their own ID number scheme)
Foreign students aren't paying taxes to the IRS, generally.
But yes, schools do have alternate systems in place for students who choose not to provide their SSN. I don't know how the tax thing works out, but schools do generally say an SSN is not required to enroll, and have alternate instructions for how to fill out their forms.
I didn't realise DVDs being taken off store shelves was such a huge problem in the US.
It probably will be, before long. The penalties are far less harsh if you're caught. And people have gotten used to getting movies for free now.
Personally, I use the public library.
Why the American people didn't run them out on a rail for that alone, I will never understand.
Because we always just let our elected representatives do that sort of thing for us... and there's a Republican majority in Congress.
My question is this: Some rich, powerful members of the Saud and bin Laden family, some Saudi agents, and some Pakistani agents must have had wind of the attack, and yet they feared the wrath of America so little that they never tried to stop it or tip off American intelligence. Why is that?
Their judgment was correct, wasn't it? They're not facing any consequences from us.
Monday morning Congress will pass the Lorem Ipsum Homeland Patriotism Act,
No no, it has to be an easily-pronounceable acronym, e.g. the Lorem Ipsum National Defense Act, or... I dunno, that one's not very good, but you get the idea. If at all possible, the acronym should be a word related to the idea you want people to think when they head the name of the bill. Remember the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act".
This sounds like a Mac. I just bought my mom a Mac and was very surprised and impressed when we plugged in the printer. Plugging it in was literally the only step.
If they can do it, we can too.
Especially since Mac OS X's printing system is based on CUPS.
Thanks for your thorough reply! It's interesting that you consider Linux a competitor moreso than Windows.
...if somebody were to take Linux and dump that stupid license mess...
There was a Windows port of QuickTime long before iTunes came along to sell iPods and music. I was kinda thinking that a Linux port of QuickTime might be done for the same reasons as the Windows port - to encourage the use of Apple's media formats, even on a competing platform. Porting iTunes just seemed the next logical step after that, which is why I mentioned it.
As for not releasing any software for Linux: the Linux ports of Darwin Streaming Server and Rendezvous work quite nicely (although the Rendezvous stuff is a bit awkward to use).
If we shipped our internal Linux ports, they would fail to work properly...
You have internal Linux ports? Hmmmmm!
Are you referring to the "viral" restrictions of the GPL, or to confusion resulting from different pieces of software being made available under different licenses, or SCO's $600 deal, or something else?
Thanks again for explaining the thinking; I'll try to pass it on the next time somebody asks. And I will continue to explain to people why Apple will never release an x86 port of Mac OS X, and why the fact that Darwin's userspace is largely ported from FreeBSD doesn't mean that porting Photoshop from OSX to Linux would be trivial.
And as long as I'm asking silly questions, can you ask somebody in retail what's up with the still-not-announced Pioneer Place store? There have been job postings for a year and a half now...
The question is:
.ogg?
.ogg support is important even though they don't use it themselves.
Does anyone really care about the 5 people who use
No, but I wasn't talking about them; I was talking about the thousands of people who think
You should definitely check out the official spin on this:
Santorum Proposes to Modernize National Weather Service to Better Serve Public
No, iTunes will keep its own database for the obvious reason: It's cross-platform. We have to ship an iTunes for Windows, which means we have to have an internal database anyway.
Speaking of cross-platform, any chance of Apple porting QuickTime (and then iTunes) to Linux? And adding Ogg Vorbis support (natively, with visualizer support) to shut people up? (Nobody who uses iTunes actually cares, but Slashdotters do bitch about Ogg not being supported.)
Wait this could be useful. Think of the pr0n. That way'll I'll never confuse goatse.cz clips with Christmas vacation movies with the inlaws. Because that could be embarassing if I mix up those two.
You can already (in both XP and OSX) view images in a particular folder as thumbnails, although Windows tends to do this by default if it notices a lot of pictures in the folder, while Mac OS X only does what you tell it to.
I've used BeOS and I am hopeful Apple's Spotlight will match, or exceed BeOS' implementation.
The guy who developed the Be filesystem is the same guy who developed Spotlight at Apple, so yeah, it'll probably be pretty good.
Exactly. I saw several items on that list that specifically address complaints I've had about 10.3 (e.g. iCal birthdays, group management and profile editing in iChat, Safari bookmark search, per-account signatures in Mail).
A quality photo manager, excellent chat client, a usable mail application, decent file management (the one thing all modern OS lack), dvd playback, multimedia playback suite,
Excellence and usability are matters of opinion, but they do include MSN Messenger, Outlook Express, and Windows Media Player (except where prohibited by antitrust rulings), and pretty much every DVD-ROM drive is bundled with software (the one I recently bought for one of my Linux servers did) so the fact that it's not included with the OS is basically irrelevant.
It blocks a lot of decent stuff that I actually need (sysadmin tools for example),
Anyone who needs to download sysadmin tools at a highway rest stop can probably find an anonymous proxy in fairly short order.
Sadly, I predict that the court experience will be FAR more mentally disturbing for this girl than the conversations she had with the guy.
Not if she wins...
Distress from what exactly?
Probably from him not showing up for their date as planned.
AOL's parent controls are not a substitute for proper parenting.
No, but that's how they're advertized, which is why she has a case.
I never thought about that though, I just went with it when the time felt right.
Well no kidding - you're a girl, so you don't really have to worry about being prosecuted for it (you just have to make sure that if you like the guy, nobody finds out).
This does not negate the fact that there are people out there who take advantage of young teenagers. Teenagers who are underage should be protected from these people (even if they are only 23 years old).
While I completely agree with you, I just want to point out that a confused teenager can VERY easily fall in love with an adult who is NOT trying to take advantage of them. All you have to do is just listen to their problems and give constructive advice - perfectly innocent - and before you know it you've got an underage girl infatuated with you who would be absolutely crushed if you pushed her away. Sounds exactly what happened here (the article mentioned she confided in him about her parents' divorce). However, the right thing to do at that point is to go ahead and crush her, NOT meet for sex.
It's probably better not to start talking to her in the first place - as soon as you find out she's only 15, that's your cue to leave. But at 23, it's hardly surprising that he hadn't figured this out yet.
Of course a lot of girls will simply lie about their age, so you're back to crushing them as soon as they let it slip.
Why wasn't I informed of this when I was 15-17?
When we were that age, girls didn't chat online, so we didn't meet them.
(Actually I did meet a girl from a BBS when I was about 14; we went to a laser tag arena. She was huge, and I didn't really talk to her after that. But now there are attractive girls using the Internet.)
It's unfair to call the younger one in this relationship a "victim" and especially unfair to call the older one a "pedophile" or even a sexual predator when all signs seem to point to the opposite; a consenting and apparently rather close relationship.
:-)
The reason it's called the "age of consent" is, even though the younger party is "consenting", they're not old enough to legally be able to give consent, because (in theory) they're not mature enough to 1) fully appreciate the long-term ramifications of their actions, and 2) really be in control of their own emotional state. Children and teenagers tend to be VERY easy to manipulate into FEELING a certain way (not just doing certain things).
Unfortunately, the point at which one becomes mature enough to handle that sort of thing varies from person to person, and the law needs to be constant. So, the line is drawn at a particular age, rather than a particular level of maturity.
I'm glad it's working out for you, though. Congratulations on getting married.
It's not that I was attracted to someone below the age of "maturity", it's that I was attracted to maturity below the age of consent. I guess this is as good a first post as any.
The trick with this is, people mature in different areas at different rates, so someone who seems mature in some areas is still immature in other areas. You think of them as being mature, and then they do or say something unexpected, and you remember just how young they are...
I'll be impressed if you can make it work long-term. Being 9 years apart isn't that amazing (my own parents were 10 years apart), but 17 is awfully young to be entering into anything serious. But maybe that's OK.
The way I see it: the girl strings along the guy for two years, promises to meet, changes her mind and two years later slaps the guy with this!
She didn't change her mind; his coworker stopped him from going. So, he stood her up. Now she's suing him for emotional distress, and suing AOL because she can (wouldn't you?).
But the problem is, 1) he shouldn't have let their relationship go the direction it did in the first place, and 2) he should have done his job.
Pardon my bluntness, but, WHERE ARE THE FSCKING PARENTS?
They were busy getting divorced, apparently.