"The construction of analogies (desktop, files, etc) was good in the 90s to educate people, but now it's time to largely deprecate it."
Yet, files are a lot more intuitive and easier to deal with. As someone once said, "a book is a book!". In the e-world, a book is best represented as a file (ebook), not a mushy structure. The same is true of pictures.
There are a lot of other things in Archy that are a lot worse than the "tried and true" methods which have developed over time because they work. The "you don't have to save" is a problem. It does not make things easier, it just replaces save commands with much-more-confusing "undos". "Better be much more careful when you type that letter! It is automatically saving, and you will have to use a tedious undo feature to undo any mistakes you might have made".
Other problems include enforcing someone's "morality" at the expense of the user's preference. Their principle of " giving you only one way to accomplish a task" only works if you happen to prefer that one way. Flexibility is much friendlier.
Under their "Train of Thought" part, they list 5 bullet items of problems with the non-Archy approach. The first two have already been pretty much solved on the Mac and in sophisticated office suites. The third, about someone's dialog box, is just a problem that happens sometimes in poorly designed programs. #4 (multiple ways to do things) is a strength, not a problem. #5 is more complicated: sometimes there is a very good reason for the commands to do different things, and sometimes there is not.
"Well, yes. A country can absorb people only so fast. Furthermore, it isn't fair that one can just waltz into a place and benefit from the existing infrastructure without having contributed toward its building. OTOH, the U.S. INS is notoriously slow in letting desirables settle in the U.S."
The "isn't fair" is a matter of welfare reform so you don't have immigrants coming in just to laze on the hammock. As for desirables, most of the illegal immigrants coming into the US work, and they do contribute "toward the building" of the country. If that does not make them desirable, what does?
"Canada's socialist governments have elevated to an art form the prostitution of poverty"
I've said before: Canada and Western Europe are not very socialist. Under socialism, the ruling class owns the means of production and everything else. This is in contrast to capitalism, where the people own it. In Canada, most property is still controlled by the people. It is a far cry from North korea, which is as socialist as county can be (ruling class owns everything, people own nothing). My Canadian friends own their own house. If Canada was truly so socialist, the government would own it instead. In other words: you exaggerate some...
". But, they should be allowed to do as they wish outside that venue. If that includes trying to overshout the speaker inside, then so be it."
No, this should be stopped, in order to preserve the free speech rights of both sides.
"It is up to the organizer to make sure they have a large enough venue and proper sound system."
Large enouge venue? Yes. Have to buy a louder sound system to drown out harassers? No. The harassment should not even be happening in the first place.
"If a group reserves a park they should be able to bar entry to whomever they wish for the duration of the function. However, they should not be given any control over the surrounding area."
"Archy doesn't even use files in the conventional sense so your argument is sophomoric"
Is it really as utterly useless as you say? No files means you can't use it with email attachments (which are files) or digital cameras (which create picture files)....to name two common uses of files. Any so-called "revolutionary" OS idea that is incompatible with such ubiquitous and useful things as email and digital cameras will "go away" for sure.
"I don't even have short filenames turned on. I haven't had any problems"
I don't think I have them turned on, either. At least I have never gone to that setting. The tilde makes a lot of files and their locations quicker and easier to type, not to mention shorter.
c:\progra~1
is a lot shorter than
"c:\program files\"
and it becomes even more advantageous for much longer file and folder paths (c:\docume~1 is a lot shorter than "c:\documents and settings")
So you have no problem with it. I do have a problem with the idea of making many common filenames and paths twice as long (or much longer). I was considering trying this, but won't after someone described this glitch.
"It's supposed to be revolutionary! Forget what you think you know and approach Archy with an open mind, for crying out loud!"
It would be a lot to consider using if not for the colossal blunder of getting rid of the tilde key, which makes it useless for file access. That is badly crippled text editing, if they can't even get the small core typewriter characters correct (incuding the backtick/accent).
"Tildes and backticks are impossible to type, they've become control characters"
No tilde????? That makes it pretty much useless for Windows file access, with all the c:\progra~1, etc. That's a huge mistake for something that is starting out on the windows platform.
"They may have to talk louder, but there is no right to silence while you are speaking."
There probably is, and there are noise ordinances, and rightfully so. There is also the right to privacy, and, again, to peacefully assemble. One you are trying to intrude on others, you are not being peacable at all.
Do you think it is OK if you want to watch TV in the evening, but the sound is drowned out by a crowd of 30 neighbors outside on the street screaming that they do not like your house paint color? This is exactly the same sort of situation.
It is perfectly acceptible to push out the shouting harassers to good distance in order that people can speak without having to worry about having to shout over those who are just trying to silence them.
Free speech is only protected when each side has the right to say what it wants without having to worry about being shouted down by the other. If one side lacks basic human decency and tries to shout down the other, separation is warranted to protect the right of both sides to say what they want..
"Also, Canada has an extremely liberal immigration policy: it's a lot easier to get in than the U.S. "
As long as you are screening for terrorists and criminals, is this a problem?
"I know many Americans think Canada is a panacea. However, almost all of the ones I've met base their opinion on what the government promises."
My friends who live in Canada near the border have a disabled child. The government-controlled health care system basically forgets her. They have to rely on U.S. services which they pay for. These are the same ones who "illegally" get US cable stations which are censored on Canadian systems.
"I have no doubt that the presendent knows exactly what those protesters wanted to say to him. What was denied them was the right to say it."
This was not denied at all. They had this right, and the Dems and GOP'pers had their right. By keeping them apart, both of them were assured the maximum right of free speech.
"That is the problem with allowing the suspending of rights of a class of people based on the possible actions of some of the individuals in tha group"
The only time rights were denied in this was when the protesters were taken to distant "free speech zones". They should have been free to do what they want as long as they did not intrude near someone else's event.
"Which, in essence, means that they are being arrested for expressing a political opinion, not for causing harm or creating a dangerous situation through negligence."
If they are trespassing or intruding at someone's event, they can get you tossed out for any reason, even if they do not wear a tie.
"Now, I will agree that, if the protesters are preventing people from entering or leaving freely, and/or threatinging people"
Why not just keep the immediate vicinity clear of everyone except attendees, especially when there are groups that have announced the intent to gather in large numbers with the intent to harass? Especially when the same groups are the ones that organized an orgy of violence and destruction at Seattle, during which they were proud of "shutting down the WTO" and preventing people from using the streets was an explicit tactic?
"The whole point of demonstrating against someone as they give a speech is to be seen and/or heard by those attending the speech"
Actually, no where do you have a "right" to force someone to see you or listen to you if they do not want to see or hear you. Radios have off-knobs. Fox News is one remote-click away from a blank screen. Newspapers can stay in the newspaper box.
If they do the reasonable thing and "hide" away from you because they do not like what they say, if you still persist you are at best a rude jerk and at worst a criminal stalker. Free speech does not mean forcing someone to listen to you or watch you or what you say against their will. Consider the 1st Amendment, which is in the context of the press and media. This has nothing at all to do with screaming in someone's face. It means you can print/say what you want, not that you have to force someone to see it.
"Canada is a nation of murderers and wimps and needs to be exposed for the fascist hell it is"
Now now, is Canada really that bad? One of the most honest measures of whether a country is a hell or not is: "are people fleeing or trying to get in?". This standard exposes Cuba for the fascist hell it is (and they even shoot you in the back as you try to escape!). I had understood that Canada is one of those countries that people are lining up to get into.
"Limiting the location of free speech is the same as limiting free speech itself"
Not if you are limiting it from intrusion or disruption of a private event, which is what was happening here.
"By pushing the protesters out to a "safe" distance, this was denied them"
By separating the protests from the conventiongoers they meant to shut down and harass, this did not deny free speech at all. I definetely disagree with pushing them into compounds, however. Merely separating two opposing groups so they cannot interfere with each other ensures the right to free speech and assembly by both sides, who are then able to have their own meetings and say what they want without interference or "overshouting" from their opponents.
"The entire country is supposed to be a "free speech" zone, not just the places where it is inconsequential."
Do you feel that free speech rights includes going into the stage at NAACP meetings and yelling "Damn N______!"? Or do you feel that any organizations at all have the right to conduct their meetings as they see fit and have a reasonable expectation that law enforcement will keep the harassers and assailants out?
Is your bedroom a "free speech zone? if Jimmy Dickwad from down the street wants to come in at 2:00 and criticize your pajamas (or lack thereof) while standing at the foot of the bed?
"The president has no more right to silence when he is giving a speach than the protesters have a right to silence when protesting"
It really depends on the venue and the hosts. It is not "The President" as such. The organizers and hosts of a meeting have the right to organize it as they see fit, including silence or not, and bar admission from trespassers and intruders. If someone organizes an event and wants silence when someone is speaking, that is their right (regardless of who the speaker is).
"What is to prevent the government from pushing free speech out of any venue it wishes? "
That is a different issue entirely. This was not a government meeting.
Can't you see that extending "free speech" rights of one group to including overshouting, harassing, and blocking others (in a second group) to the point where they are not allowed to speak ends up violating this 2nd group's free speech rights? If both are allowed their say without interfering with the other side, this preserves the most free speech possible.
"Your implied definition of property as something tangible ignores the characteristic of property whereby its worth is a function of its scarcity."
You are going off on a far tangent. In this, you might have the change known as "diminished value", which still has nothing at all to do with theft. Since when did "theft" have to do with how scarce something was? Never.
If you pee in the punchbowl, you have diminished its value. You have not stolen it. The only pseudo-definitions are yours with have nothing to do with stealing.
"Canada: From the parent's antecdote, it would seem that questioning the healthcare system is a no-no. "
There is also the one province that censors private (i.e. non-government) communication for being in the wrong language. That is s major piece of diescrimination based on ethnicity.
"Say to whom? The people have a Constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievences - i.e., yell at them"
This is an interesting take on it. Does this mean that this can happen at any time? Pres. Bush or Sen. Kerry can have someone screaming in their windows 24 hours a day? If Sen. Edwards dines at Wendy's, his detractors must be allowed in to interrupt him?
Or, if you support such protest during/disrupting political events in order to redress the government, what about events and conventions (Green, Libertarian, etc) where most everyone is not a government official? Do different rules apply then?
The question of what a petition is comes up as well. What is a petition? "A solemn supplication or request to a superior authority; an entreaty." Screaming, harassing, and assaulting convention-goers is a far cry from a solemn petition.
In regards to the orwellian Free Speech zones, I have changed my mind in reading these responses to my "overrated" posting, and other information. I do not think that free speech compounds are a good idea at all, even though I do not have a problem with buffer zones around someone's event or assembly (even if the buffer zone is a couple of blocks wide). In other words, if someone has a party event in Cincinnati, have a buffer zone around the convention center, but let the protesters gather anywhere they want outside it (not just in a distant compound).
"Sure, they still had free speech. They just couldn't *exercise* it."
Yes they could. As long as it respected the others' right to free speech and assembly.
"And the media wasn't allowed to enter/approach the 'free speech zones'."
I overlooked this in the story, Assuming it is true (and it must be: no AC ever lied!), there is no excuse for this at all that I could think of.
"How is it free speech if you're restricted in *where* you can speak"
Simple: you are just not allowed to interfere/harass others in their acts of free speech.
"Where" you can speak is restricted all the time. The New York Times editorial page is a "free speech zone" only for their editorial board and those they invite along. If you want to say something else, you can't do it in the New York Times.
"Allowing an entire class of people to have their rights stripped"
Stripped? They still had free speech, but now it was assured that the announced and intended disruption of another's event could not take place. This being said, I think the buffer zone between the speakers and those who were trying to silence them was much too large.
Even with the large "buffer zone", if you are allowed to have a loud protest anywhere you want except for a temporary zone around someone else's event (which you basically asked for by announcing your intent of disrupting this event), that leaves more than 99% of the entire country for you to have the protest.
" Today, a sign can be in any language, but it must also be in French, and the French text must be more prominant. It's not great, but it is better than it was."
If it is not a government sign, why is it the government's business? There is nothing more ludicrous than the idea of going into Chinatown and finding it full of non-Chinese signs.
The only bright spot to this is that this fascistic control of private expression is not really enfornced (according to another Slashdotter who is in Quebec). The law is horrible, outrageous, and an affront to the idea of freedom of expression....but at least it is almost never enforced.
"If you define propaganda as "something that you disagree with."
That is the usual usage of it around here. Meaninglessly labelling facts or opinion you do not agree with as "propaganda" is often followed by an argument to censor it. It is an emotional diversionary tactic to avoid discussing the facts of an issue.
"Which province is this? Quebec's law only requires prominant labelling in French on commercial production, signing and advertising. Private speech is not affected"
You are forgetting the part that actually involves censoring English signs.
That is private, personal speech which is not the government's. Besides, shouln't you be allowed to use the language you want in your own affairs?
"What's not a joke are Free [amconmag.com] Speech [aclu.org] Zones [sfgate.com] everywhere our fearless leader goes"
Do you honestly think these would not be happening if the protesters were not harassing and trying to shout down the speaker, and trespass at his events? Of course it would not. Nice troll you posted.
I have no problem with their protests and events. However, they should be held well clear of the others' events. Let each side have their say.
Slashdot Mirror
Why use a browser for non-browsing activity???? Eudora does good for mail, and there are many good FTP programs.
Yet, files are a lot more intuitive and easier to deal with. As someone once said, "a book is a book!". In the e-world, a book is best represented as a file (ebook), not a mushy structure. The same is true of pictures.
There are a lot of other things in Archy that are a lot worse than the "tried and true" methods which have developed over time because they work. The "you don't have to save" is a problem. It does not make things easier, it just replaces save commands with much-more-confusing "undos". "Better be much more careful when you type that letter! It is automatically saving, and you will have to use a tedious undo feature to undo any mistakes you might have made".
Other problems include enforcing someone's "morality" at the expense of the user's preference. Their principle of " giving you only one way to accomplish a task" only works if you happen to prefer that one way. Flexibility is much friendlier.
Under their "Train of Thought" part, they list 5 bullet items of problems with the non-Archy approach. The first two have already been pretty much solved on the Mac and in sophisticated office suites. The third, about someone's dialog box, is just a problem that happens sometimes in poorly designed programs. #4 (multiple ways to do things) is a strength, not a problem. #5 is more complicated: sometimes there is a very good reason for the commands to do different things, and sometimes there is not.
The "isn't fair" is a matter of welfare reform so you don't have immigrants coming in just to laze on the hammock. As for desirables, most of the illegal immigrants coming into the US work, and they do contribute "toward the building" of the country. If that does not make them desirable, what does?
"Canada's socialist governments have elevated to an art form the prostitution of poverty"
I've said before: Canada and Western Europe are not very socialist. Under socialism, the ruling class owns the means of production and everything else. This is in contrast to capitalism, where the people own it. In Canada, most property is still controlled by the people. It is a far cry from North korea, which is as socialist as county can be (ruling class owns everything, people own nothing). My Canadian friends own their own house. If Canada was truly so socialist, the government would own it instead. In other words: you exaggerate some...
No, this should be stopped, in order to preserve the free speech rights of both sides.
"It is up to the organizer to make sure they have a large enough venue and proper sound system."
Large enouge venue? Yes. Have to buy a louder sound system to drown out harassers? No. The harassment should not even be happening in the first place.
"If a group reserves a park they should be able to bar entry to whomever they wish for the duration of the function. However, they should not be given any control over the surrounding area."
Unless it impinges on the group's event.
Is it really as utterly useless as you say? No files means you can't use it with email attachments (which are files) or digital cameras (which create picture files)....to name two common uses of files. Any so-called "revolutionary" OS idea that is incompatible with such ubiquitous and useful things as email and digital cameras will "go away" for sure.
I don't think I have them turned on, either. At least I have never gone to that setting. The tilde makes a lot of files and their locations quicker and easier to type, not to mention shorter.
c:\progra~1
is a lot shorter than
"c:\program files\"
and it becomes even more advantageous for much longer file and folder paths (c:\docume~1 is a lot shorter than "c:\documents and settings")
So you have no problem with it. I do have a problem with the idea of making many common filenames and paths twice as long (or much longer). I was considering trying this, but won't after someone described this glitch.
It would be a lot to consider using if not for the colossal blunder of getting rid of the tilde key, which makes it useless for file access. That is badly crippled text editing, if they can't even get the small core typewriter characters correct (incuding the backtick/accent).
No tilde????? That makes it pretty much useless for Windows file access, with all the c:\progra~1, etc. That's a huge mistake for something that is starting out on the windows platform.
Anyway, I had enough of the whole cockroaches-in-the-computer thing when I lived in Brooklyn for a while. It gets old pretty fast.
There probably is, and there are noise ordinances, and rightfully so. There is also the right to privacy, and, again, to peacefully assemble. One you are trying to intrude on others, you are not being peacable at all.
Do you think it is OK if you want to watch TV in the evening, but the sound is drowned out by a crowd of 30 neighbors outside on the street screaming that they do not like your house paint color? This is exactly the same sort of situation.
It is perfectly acceptible to push out the shouting harassers to good distance in order that people can speak without having to worry about having to shout over those who are just trying to silence them.
Free speech is only protected when each side has the right to say what it wants without having to worry about being shouted down by the other. If one side lacks basic human decency and tries to shout down the other, separation is warranted to protect the right of both sides to say what they want..
As long as you are screening for terrorists and criminals, is this a problem?
"I know many Americans think Canada is a panacea. However, almost all of the ones I've met base their opinion on what the government promises."
My friends who live in Canada near the border have a disabled child. The government-controlled health care system basically forgets her. They have to rely on U.S. services which they pay for. These are the same ones who "illegally" get US cable stations which are censored on Canadian systems.
This was not denied at all. They had this right, and the Dems and GOP'pers had their right. By keeping them apart, both of them were assured the maximum right of free speech.
"That is the problem with allowing the suspending of rights of a class of people based on the possible actions of some of the individuals in tha group"
The only time rights were denied in this was when the protesters were taken to distant "free speech zones". They should have been free to do what they want as long as they did not intrude near someone else's event.
"Which, in essence, means that they are being arrested for expressing a political opinion, not for causing harm or creating a dangerous situation through negligence."
If they are trespassing or intruding at someone's event, they can get you tossed out for any reason, even if they do not wear a tie.
"Now, I will agree that, if the protesters are preventing people from entering or leaving freely, and/or threatinging people"
Why not just keep the immediate vicinity clear of everyone except attendees, especially when there are groups that have announced the intent to gather in large numbers with the intent to harass? Especially when the same groups are the ones that organized an orgy of violence and destruction at Seattle, during which they were proud of "shutting down the WTO" and preventing people from using the streets was an explicit tactic?
Actually, no where do you have a "right" to force someone to see you or listen to you if they do not want to see or hear you. Radios have off-knobs. Fox News is one remote-click away from a blank screen. Newspapers can stay in the newspaper box.
If they do the reasonable thing and "hide" away from you because they do not like what they say, if you still persist you are at best a rude jerk and at worst a criminal stalker. Free speech does not mean forcing someone to listen to you or watch you or what you say against their will. Consider the 1st Amendment, which is in the context of the press and media. This has nothing at all to do with screaming in someone's face. It means you can print/say what you want, not that you have to force someone to see it.
Now now, is Canada really that bad? One of the most honest measures of whether a country is a hell or not is: "are people fleeing or trying to get in?". This standard exposes Cuba for the fascist hell it is (and they even shoot you in the back as you try to escape!). I had understood that Canada is one of those countries that people are lining up to get into.
Not if you are limiting it from intrusion or disruption of a private event, which is what was happening here.
"By pushing the protesters out to a "safe" distance, this was denied them"
By separating the protests from the conventiongoers they meant to shut down and harass, this did not deny free speech at all. I definetely disagree with pushing them into compounds, however. Merely separating two opposing groups so they cannot interfere with each other ensures the right to free speech and assembly by both sides, who are then able to have their own meetings and say what they want without interference or "overshouting" from their opponents.
"The entire country is supposed to be a "free speech" zone, not just the places where it is inconsequential."
Do you feel that free speech rights includes going into the stage at NAACP meetings and yelling "Damn N______!"? Or do you feel that any organizations at all have the right to conduct their meetings as they see fit and have a reasonable expectation that law enforcement will keep the harassers and assailants out?
Is your bedroom a "free speech zone? if Jimmy Dickwad from down the street wants to come in at 2:00 and criticize your pajamas (or lack thereof) while standing at the foot of the bed?
"The president has no more right to silence when he is giving a speach than the protesters have a right to silence when protesting"
It really depends on the venue and the hosts. It is not "The President" as such. The organizers and hosts of a meeting have the right to organize it as they see fit, including silence or not, and bar admission from trespassers and intruders. If someone organizes an event and wants silence when someone is speaking, that is their right (regardless of who the speaker is).
"What is to prevent the government from pushing free speech out of any venue it wishes? "
That is a different issue entirely. This was not a government meeting.
Can't you see that extending "free speech" rights of one group to including overshouting, harassing, and blocking others (in a second group) to the point where they are not allowed to speak ends up violating this 2nd group's free speech rights? If both are allowed their say without interfering with the other side, this preserves the most free speech possible.
You are going off on a far tangent. In this, you might have the change known as "diminished value", which still has nothing at all to do with theft. Since when did "theft" have to do with how scarce something was? Never.
If you pee in the punchbowl, you have diminished its value. You have not stolen it. The only pseudo-definitions are yours with have nothing to do with stealing.
There is also the one province that censors private (i.e. non-government) communication for being in the wrong language. That is s major piece of diescrimination based on ethnicity.
This is an interesting take on it. Does this mean that this can happen at any time? Pres. Bush or Sen. Kerry can have someone screaming in their windows 24 hours a day? If Sen. Edwards dines at Wendy's, his detractors must be allowed in to interrupt him?
Or, if you support such protest during/disrupting political events in order to redress the government, what about events and conventions (Green, Libertarian, etc) where most everyone is not a government official? Do different rules apply then? The question of what a petition is comes up as well. What is a petition? "A solemn supplication or request to a superior authority; an entreaty." Screaming, harassing, and assaulting convention-goers is a far cry from a solemn petition.
In regards to the orwellian Free Speech zones, I have changed my mind in reading these responses to my "overrated" posting, and other information. I do not think that free speech compounds are a good idea at all, even though I do not have a problem with buffer zones around someone's event or assembly (even if the buffer zone is a couple of blocks wide). In other words, if someone has a party event in Cincinnati, have a buffer zone around the convention center, but let the protesters gather anywhere they want outside it (not just in a distant compound).
Yes they could. As long as it respected the others' right to free speech and assembly.
"And the media wasn't allowed to enter/approach the 'free speech zones'."
I overlooked this in the story, Assuming it is true (and it must be: no AC ever lied!), there is no excuse for this at all that I could think of.
"How is it free speech if you're restricted in *where* you can speak"
Simple: you are just not allowed to interfere/harass others in their acts of free speech.
"Where" you can speak is restricted all the time. The New York Times editorial page is a "free speech zone" only for their editorial board and those they invite along. If you want to say something else, you can't do it in the New York Times.
Stripped? They still had free speech, but now it was assured that the announced and intended disruption of another's event could not take place. This being said, I think the buffer zone between the speakers and those who were trying to silence them was much too large.
Even with the large "buffer zone", if you are allowed to have a loud protest anywhere you want except for a temporary zone around someone else's event (which you basically asked for by announcing your intent of disrupting this event), that leaves more than 99% of the entire country for you to have the protest.
If it is not a government sign, why is it the government's business? There is nothing more ludicrous than the idea of going into Chinatown and finding it full of non-Chinese signs.
The only bright spot to this is that this fascistic control of private expression is not really enfornced (according to another Slashdotter who is in Quebec). The law is horrible, outrageous, and an affront to the idea of freedom of expression....but at least it is almost never enforced.
That is the usual usage of it around here. Meaninglessly labelling facts or opinion you do not agree with as "propaganda" is often followed by an argument to censor it. It is an emotional diversionary tactic to avoid discussing the facts of an issue.
Well, for one thing, he freely admitted it all over the place.
"there is more evidence that 9/11 *was* a CIA operation, than there is evidence that a group called "Al Q'Aeda" was behind it."
To this day, there is 0 evidence of CIA involvement. Your claim is certainly a lie. I do not know if I would call it "extreme", however.
You are forgetting the part that actually involves censoring English signs. That is private, personal speech which is not the government's. Besides, shouln't you be allowed to use the language you want in your own affairs?
Do you honestly think these would not be happening if the protesters were not harassing and trying to shout down the speaker, and trespass at his events? Of course it would not. Nice troll you posted.
I have no problem with their protests and events. However, they should be held well clear of the others' events. Let each side have their say.