Y'know, I love Mozilla. I really do. But I'm very tired of these sorts of responses. They're supposed to be working toward a 1.0 release and they're still rewriting major portions of the software? That is completely unacceptable.
'Course some of my jadedness has to do with the lack of good Mozilla support in Debian. Yeah, yeah, I know all the reasons and it's a volunteer project, etc., etc., etc. It's time to stop the excuses.
Debian rocks. I know this. Someday Mozilla will as well. But probably not before kmail shows up in Debian with IMAP support at which point I'm long gone.
Read the archive of messages from JMS on the various B5 boards. The Sinclair reassignment was not in the original story.
Assume for the moment that Sinclair was not reassigned. Given what we know happens to him in "War Without End," the story makes much more sense if that episode were shown as the last one in the series. It completes a loop and brings us back to the pilot episode. It fixes a number of problems including the Great Machine (which never actually does anything significant except in that episode -- it just sort of hangs around afterward and it is never adequately explained why Sheridan doesn't use it), the marriage ceremony in "The Parliament of Dreams" (again, never followed up -- perhaps Delenn was supposed to go with Sinclair?) and Catherine Sakai (who was probably meant to be the Anna Sheridan character -- she worked for IPX!).
The problem with the above scenario is that it doesn't adequately address the ousting of the First Ones. That's an important element of the story and not something I think JMS made up along the way. Unless Sinclair goes through this process and then uses the great machine at the very end to complete the cycle.
Recall that JMS thought the story would be better after reassigning Sinclair because he would not be the subject of every major element of the story. It would be much more believable, he felt, if the major responsibilities were split between two characters. It seems clear to me that in spite of what some fans want to think, the Sheridan character was nothing more than a fix-up to an ugly situation with Michael O'Hare (who doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves).
That said, B5 remains one of my favorite sci-fi series of all time. It's a great story. Farscape ranks right up there with it, simply because of the great writing, which B5 sorely needed. JMS, Like George Lucas, is a wonderful storyteller, but his writing skills leave much to be desired.
You mean, aside from the scene where a bunch of hardware is dumped on a table, and the engineers are told that they need to figure out what can be used to help the astronauts survive? (they'd worked out contingency plans like that well before the flight)
I can't specifically remember that part from the documentary, but NASA certainly doesn't have a contingency for everything. That would be a waste of time and money. They didn't have a contingency for an O2 tank explosion and fuel cell loss, for example. But this point is very, very minor and doesn't take away from the accuracy of the movie at all.
How about the level of profanity used by the Apollo crew? It's hard to believe now, but they DIDN'T talk like that.
How do you know? Modern profanity has been used for a very, VERY long time.
It's called "artistic license", or "being creative" - and because of that virtually NO movie which claims to "based on a true story" is going to be completely accurate.
Of course. Check the subject of this thread. We were asked to name "pretty accurate" movies, not historical matches.
I believe Midway (shown last night on TMC) is accepted as fairly accurate. Nice mention of the Doolittle raid and its effects on the strategy of the Japanese campaign.
The Longest Day, while overly dramatic at times, does have nice bits of accurate history in there. The book is even better.
Apollo 13 was also pretty good, especially after having seen the excellent Nova documentary on the subject just a few weeks before.
Das Boot, though not a recount of any specific event, is a riveting film and fairly accurate depiction of life on a German WWII U-Boot.
Yes, Tora! Tora! Tora! is a classic. Highly recommended.
Generally, I've found that A&E and the BBC/PBS put out good docu-dramas covering a much wider variety of subjects than you'd get from Hollywood. I'm thinking specifically of Longitude and the Masterpiece Theater portrayal of Alan Turing (don't recall the title offhand, but it starred that always wonderful Derek Jacoby). Great stuff!
This is absolutely the first thing that went through my mind when I saw this article. Apple has a tradition of being on the cutting edge in terms of what it brings to (forces upon?) the average desktop user. That's good in the sense that it advances technology perhaps slightly faster than it would have otherwise, but its bad for Apple customers who pay more to be the pioneers (and sometimes get the arrows in the process).
Consider that a big reason folks don't purchase from Apple is the cost. In a sense, Apple reduces their market share by pushing technology and bringing new features to the end user without providing alternatives of time-proven (and cost-amortized!) technology.
As for your corporate comparison, Scientology's structural oranization is not that far from that of the Roman Catholic Church, or those of many Eastern religions. The Christian Coalition is an American non-profit that has poltical lobbiests, PR people, fund raisers, advertisers, etc. Religions are organizations. They have marketing, accounting, operations, and other departments just like any business or government.
You're confusing things. The Catholic Church and the Christian Coalition have nothing to do with each other. Some Catholics may be members of the Coalition, but it is not even remotely connected with the Catholic Church.
In fact, the Catholic heirarchy discourages those with positions of authority (priests, etc.) from running for political office. This is not to say that political advocacy is not encouraged. Priests and other such ministers have so many other obligations that holding a political office is simply impossible.
Religions are organizations. They have marketing, accounting, operations, and other departments just like any business or government.
They have these things because they're needed, not because they're scams. If no one was accoutable for the money, how would it get doled out to the right people? Not to mention that churches are made up of fallible people, so embezzlement would almost certainly be more prevalent than it is. Also, the government requires record-keeping for tax purposes, even for tax-exempt organizations.
Is the modern Catholic Church a scam to get your money? I don't think so.
Good.:)
Clearly, the Scientologists are a scam, but the only difference between them and the other organizations is one of intention.
If you honestly believe that, I think you are dangerously uninformed about Scientology. Have a look at Operation Clambake and spread the word!
I do believe the 2nd Ammendment needs to be ammended, especially with regards to the tax-exempt status.
Why? A legitimate religious organization should not have to pay taxes. If they did, the government would have control over religious activities. Think about taxes applied to religious actions we don't like -- a "religious sin tax," if you will:). Such an ammendment alteration would be dangerous.
If a particular "church" sells items to fund vacations, it is acting fradulently and should be prosecuted.
The majority of the country (perhaps rightfully) would rather put up with Scientology than have their church pay taxes.
It's not an either/or situation. Scientology is not a religion and should not be a tax-exempt religious organization. What's lacking is information in the right hands.
Corporations and wealthy individuals either have lawyers in-house or have them on retainer. They don't have the option of working for the other side.
At best, Joe Schmoe might be able to convince and equally high-powered lawyer to fight his case. I suppose in that event J.S. will have a good chance of winning if the case is solid. But there's always a chance for a loss. As long as that possibility is there, J.S. is at a disadvantage.
And yes, of course he's at a disadvantage in the current system. I'm not trying to justify how things are now, but rather point out how a proposed fix may not be as nice as we'd like to think.
While this sounds like a good idea on the face of it, think of the consequences. Say a middle-class worker sues his employer and loses? What if he sues an upper-class individual and loses?
Note that there's a double-whammy effect here. The wealthier individuals and corporations have access to better lawyers, improving their chances for a decision in their favor. It also happens that these high-priced lawyers are, well, high-priced. The little guy has less of a chance to win and has to pay more if he doesn't!
Birth control liberates females to the same sexual freedom that males have.
I still don't accept this argument. Women have always had the same sexual freedoms men have. BOTH sexes have a responsibility if a child is conceived. Birth control can exacerbate the objectification of women because sex no longer has consequences. One night stands are hurtful. Sex before marriage is hurtful, because the physical intimacy expresses a level of commitment that may not be there. If the relationship fails, both parties are hurt more than they would be had abstinence been practiced.
Within the married relatioship, I personally have many questions and concerns which need much thought and prayer.
Anything which then continues to force these countries to over reproduce does them nothing but harm
Nobody is forcing anyone to over-reproduce, or reproduce at all. Sometimes it is a necessity for families in such countries to be large, either because they are agrarian, have low child survival rates or for some other reason. I fear that birth control is being touted as a simple solution, and it just isn't.
It dosn't matter WHY the Church dosn't want you to do these things.
Of course it matters WHY the Church teaches what it teaches. Otherwise what's the point? There are innumerable documents about Church teachings. Do you think they are written for fun?
Here's what I'm saying: the teachings on birth control, on the face of it, seem outrageous. If you go and read and try to understand the reasons behind it, I think you'll come away a much more thoughtful person. I did. I can't say I always agree with the teachings, but I have a better understanding of them and am much more aware of situations where the reasoning behind them comes into play.
Catholicism, besides the quite fundamental attitudes towards sexuality and its applicability beyond mere procreation,
The Catholic Chruch recognizes the procreative and unitive aspects of the sex act. The Church simply teaches that every act must be open to new life. It does not, not, not teach that the act is a mechanical, evil necessity devoid of meaning beyond its biological aspects.
proscribes no birth control.
While true, this doesn't really have anything to do with the Church encouraging population growth.
It is also one that proscribes either abstention or no birth control. This is not a logical way to reduce overpopulation or the problems associated with it.
To be fair, that's not the goal of the teaching. Abstention is often the right answer, especially for non-married couples. Within the marriage relationship it is obviously much more difficult to accept.
I'm not claiming to have all the answers. This is a very difficult question, but it's important, I think, to understand the reasoning behind these teachings. Making blanket statements without the background knowledge is dangerous. That is what I am responding to.
See my response above. The Catholic Church's stance on birth control results from concerns that have nothing to do with reproduction. Perhaps that's how the teaching originated, but today there are higher spirtual and sociological reasons. Not that I always agree with them, but we do need to take care, become educated and most importantly, think and pray about it.
Likely, though he is being over policitaclly correct in naming only Catholicism as a religon in creating overpopulation problems
And exactly how do these religions create overpopulation problems? I can't speak for the others, but nowhere in the Catholic catechism does it say "Thou shalt have more than 2 children."
I regularly hear the oft-perpetuated myth that the Catholic Church believes sex is evil. Then I hear how the Catholic Church is causing overpopulation problems. Well, which is it?
The truth is, the Catholic Church has teachings about birth control that are rooted not in a desire for reproduction but for spiritual (openness to God's actions) and sociological (esp. respect for women and marital relationships) reasons. Now I'm not saying I agree with all of those teachings, but we ought to become educated about them before we go misrepresenting them.
why don't we concentrate on streamlining the adoption process and make it easier for people to adopt children from underprivaleged nations around the world? Let's have social justice before we start muckign around in the old gene-code there, pals.
This bit is the most intelligent thing I've read all day. Thank you.
I'm all for using our genetic knowledge for the betterment of mankind, and if folks want to make infertile people fertile, that is their choice, I suppose. IMHO, though, people don't consider the excellent alternatives enough. It's almost a selfish instinct to want "one's own" children, but it ignores the need and humanity of a whole lot of folks out there.
The argument about passing on "bad genes" is a little frightening, though I'm sure you didn't mean it in the way it may come across.
If I take every combination of instructions (say, of a certain length), can I prove whether a particular combination was functionally equivalent to the source code? If so, I should be able to measure the running time for each one.
Funny you should mention this. It's been implemented in the GNU SuperOptimizer.:)
Which brings me to another point: there's a lot of legacy code in other languages, so it would be very nice to be able to copy and paste it into a hybrid program.
Why in heaven's name would you want to do it that way? A much better approach is to compile those legacy codes into separate modules and provide the language with a way to import those modules with the ABI of the particular legacy system used. C++ can do this to a limited extent with extern "C" and there's no reason someone couldn't implement extern "FORTRAN" or some other such thing (I'm not sure if standard C++ allows extern to specify a calling convention in addition to a linkage, though).
If we really take this to extremes, we might want such a feature to handle interpreted languages as well. It gets a bit tricky around that spot, though.:)
Except for FORTRAN, which still kicks C's ass on numerical applications because of the "pointer problem", and yes C++ can produce code as fast as C, but it's much more difficult due to the complexity of the language.
Standard C++ fixes some of the performance problems with earlier implementations. For an eye-opener, check out Blitz++,
a numerical library written in C++. It performs on par with FORTRAN, sometimes even exceeding FORTRAN's vaunted numerical speed.
Standard C++ can also be much, much faster than C. The standard sorting algorithm is a typical example. std::sort is 250% to 1000% faster than qsort according to one benchmark. It is 20% to 50% faster than a hand-coded C quicksort for a particular data type. I have seen such results elsewhere -- this is just the first page Google turned up.
Yes, std::sort is using inlining to good advantage. That's not "cheating" as some may argue. C++ (and the standard library) provide the efficiency of inlining while maintaining genericity and separation. That's what templates do. It's an intrinsic part of the language. C++ and the standard library help you reduce programmer time (less code to write) and execution time in many important cases.
C++'s combination of static typing, polymorphism and generic programming while maintaining the ability to do "traditional" C-style structured programming is really, really nice. I have my choice of options for coding particular modules and I don't need to learn three different languages to do so. One could even argue that C++ supports a fourth model: with template metaprogramming, one can write C++ code in a style that almost looks like functional programming in the sense that recursion is used exclusively and the code implements functions that do not modify any values. Granted, this form of coding is limited to compile-time values, but it can be used in lots of surprising ways to do things like generate entire class heirarchies automatically.
I believe the whole concept of gesture-based menus was first pioneered (and put into production) by Alias|Wavefront...
The cool thing is that gesture-based menus have been part of the Alias|Wavefront products since 1996.
I don't know what a "gesture-based menu" is, but I was using the gesture (stroke) interface of Mentor Graphics (circuit/system CAD) package back in '93. I'm sure it existed even before then.
The nice thing about Mentor is that you can do things in many different ways: menus, keystrokes, gestures, scripts and so forth. It's flexible without being cumbersome. Really, it's probably the best computer user experience I've ever had.
This was with a mouse, BTW, which seemed perfectly natural to me. The middle button initiated a stroke, but I think this was configurable.
I have a question that I hope someone can answer, because I am thoroughly confused:
If people dislike the DVD restrictions so much, why do we buy them?
Why aren't we boycotting this format? Because it won't be effective? Then educate people. I feel no strong urge to run out and buy a DVD player. When you get down to it, there's not really a whole lot of advantage over older formats.
One of the big problems here is that according to copyright/fair use law, I as a consumer am allowed to copy anything I purchase. I am also allowed to give these copies away.
Pardon? Yes, you are allowed to copy. You are not, not, not allowed to redistribute (even at no cost) without a license. This is the whole reason the GPL works.
How can you determine what is a pirated copy and what is a fair use copy?
Every copy is a fair use copy. Distributing them is a criminal act.
Where exactly would *you* draw the line as to what's legal and what's not??
At distribution, where it's always been. I completely agree that personal copies cannot and should not be restricted. But unlicensed distribution is illegal and should stay that way.
Yes! The Mentor Graphics strokes interface is great! Rotating, deleting, copying, zooming, just about anything you need to do can be done with a stroke. Anyone designing a gesture interface should spend some quality time using this application suite.
Mentor Graphics was the first set of applications that showed me TMTOWTDI. If only Perl would implement it so elegantly...:)
Slashdot Mirror
--
'Course some of my jadedness has to do with the lack of good Mozilla support in Debian. Yeah, yeah, I know all the reasons and it's a volunteer project, etc., etc., etc. It's time to stop the excuses.
Debian rocks. I know this. Someday Mozilla will as well. But probably not before kmail shows up in Debian with IMAP support at which point I'm long gone.
--
Assume for the moment that Sinclair was not reassigned. Given what we know happens to him in "War Without End," the story makes much more sense if that episode were shown as the last one in the series. It completes a loop and brings us back to the pilot episode. It fixes a number of problems including the Great Machine (which never actually does anything significant except in that episode -- it just sort of hangs around afterward and it is never adequately explained why Sheridan doesn't use it), the marriage ceremony in "The Parliament of Dreams" (again, never followed up -- perhaps Delenn was supposed to go with Sinclair?) and Catherine Sakai (who was probably meant to be the Anna Sheridan character -- she worked for IPX!).
The problem with the above scenario is that it doesn't adequately address the ousting of the First Ones. That's an important element of the story and not something I think JMS made up along the way. Unless Sinclair goes through this process and then uses the great machine at the very end to complete the cycle.
Recall that JMS thought the story would be better after reassigning Sinclair because he would not be the subject of every major element of the story. It would be much more believable, he felt, if the major responsibilities were split between two characters. It seems clear to me that in spite of what some fans want to think, the Sheridan character was nothing more than a fix-up to an ugly situation with Michael O'Hare (who doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves).
That said, B5 remains one of my favorite sci-fi series of all time. It's a great story. Farscape ranks right up there with it, simply because of the great writing, which B5 sorely needed. JMS, Like George Lucas, is a wonderful storyteller, but his writing skills leave much to be desired.
--
I can't specifically remember that part from the documentary, but NASA certainly doesn't have a contingency for everything. That would be a waste of time and money. They didn't have a contingency for an O2 tank explosion and fuel cell loss, for example. But this point is very, very minor and doesn't take away from the accuracy of the movie at all.
How do you know? Modern profanity has been used for a very, VERY long time.
Of course. Check the subject of this thread. We were asked to name "pretty accurate" movies, not historical matches.
--
The Longest Day, while overly dramatic at times, does have nice bits of accurate history in there. The book is even better.
Apollo 13 was also pretty good, especially after having seen the excellent Nova documentary on the subject just a few weeks before.
Das Boot, though not a recount of any specific event, is a riveting film and fairly accurate depiction of life on a German WWII U-Boot.
Yes, Tora! Tora! Tora! is a classic. Highly recommended.
Generally, I've found that A&E and the BBC/PBS put out good docu-dramas covering a much wider variety of subjects than you'd get from Hollywood. I'm thinking specifically of Longitude and the Masterpiece Theater portrayal of Alan Turing (don't recall the title offhand, but it starred that always wonderful Derek Jacoby). Great stuff!
--
--
I'm curious. What, exactly, do you feel is bloated about C++?
--
Consider that a big reason folks don't purchase from Apple is the cost. In a sense, Apple reduces their market share by pushing technology and bringing new features to the end user without providing alternatives of time-proven (and cost-amortized!) technology.
--
You're confusing things. The Catholic Church and the Christian Coalition have nothing to do with each other. Some Catholics may be members of the Coalition, but it is not even remotely connected with the Catholic Church.
In fact, the Catholic heirarchy discourages those with positions of authority (priests, etc.) from running for political office. This is not to say that political advocacy is not encouraged. Priests and other such ministers have so many other obligations that holding a political office is simply impossible.
They have these things because they're needed, not because they're scams. If no one was accoutable for the money, how would it get doled out to the right people? Not to mention that churches are made up of fallible people, so embezzlement would almost certainly be more prevalent than it is. Also, the government requires record-keeping for tax purposes, even for tax-exempt organizations.
Good. :)
If you honestly believe that, I think you are dangerously uninformed about Scientology. Have a look at Operation Clambake and spread the word!
Why? A legitimate religious organization should not have to pay taxes. If they did, the government would have control over religious activities. Think about taxes applied to religious actions we don't like -- a "religious sin tax," if you will :). Such an ammendment alteration would be dangerous.
If a particular "church" sells items to fund vacations, it is acting fradulently and should be prosecuted.
It's not an either/or situation. Scientology is not a religion and should not be a tax-exempt religious organization. What's lacking is information in the right hands.
--
At best, Joe Schmoe might be able to convince and equally high-powered lawyer to fight his case. I suppose in that event J.S. will have a good chance of winning if the case is solid. But there's always a chance for a loss. As long as that possibility is there, J.S. is at a disadvantage.
And yes, of course he's at a disadvantage in the current system. I'm not trying to justify how things are now, but rather point out how a proposed fix may not be as nice as we'd like to think.
--
Note that there's a double-whammy effect here. The wealthier individuals and corporations have access to better lawyers, improving their chances for a decision in their favor. It also happens that these high-priced lawyers are, well, high-priced. The little guy has less of a chance to win and has to pay more if he doesn't!
--
I still don't accept this argument. Women have always had the same sexual freedoms men have. BOTH sexes have a responsibility if a child is conceived. Birth control can exacerbate the objectification of women because sex no longer has consequences. One night stands are hurtful. Sex before marriage is hurtful, because the physical intimacy expresses a level of commitment that may not be there. If the relationship fails, both parties are hurt more than they would be had abstinence been practiced.
Within the married relatioship, I personally have many questions and concerns which need much thought and prayer.
Nobody is forcing anyone to over-reproduce, or reproduce at all. Sometimes it is a necessity for families in such countries to be large, either because they are agrarian, have low child survival rates or for some other reason. I fear that birth control is being touted as a simple solution, and it just isn't.
--
Of course it matters WHY the Church teaches what it teaches. Otherwise what's the point? There are innumerable documents about Church teachings. Do you think they are written for fun?
Here's what I'm saying: the teachings on birth control, on the face of it, seem outrageous. If you go and read and try to understand the reasons behind it, I think you'll come away a much more thoughtful person. I did. I can't say I always agree with the teachings, but I have a better understanding of them and am much more aware of situations where the reasoning behind them comes into play.
--
The Catholic Chruch recognizes the procreative and unitive aspects of the sex act. The Church simply teaches that every act must be open to new life. It does not, not, not teach that the act is a mechanical, evil necessity devoid of meaning beyond its biological aspects.
While true, this doesn't really have anything to do with the Church encouraging population growth.
To be fair, that's not the goal of the teaching. Abstention is often the right answer, especially for non-married couples. Within the marriage relationship it is obviously much more difficult to accept.
I'm not claiming to have all the answers. This is a very difficult question, but it's important, I think, to understand the reasoning behind these teachings. Making blanket statements without the background knowledge is dangerous. That is what I am responding to.
--
See my response above. The Catholic Church's stance on birth control results from concerns that have nothing to do with reproduction. Perhaps that's how the teaching originated, but today there are higher spirtual and sociological reasons. Not that I always agree with them, but we do need to take care, become educated and most importantly, think and pray about it.
--
And exactly how do these religions create overpopulation problems? I can't speak for the others, but nowhere in the Catholic catechism does it say "Thou shalt have more than 2 children."
I regularly hear the oft-perpetuated myth that the Catholic Church believes sex is evil. Then I hear how the Catholic Church is causing overpopulation problems. Well, which is it?
The truth is, the Catholic Church has teachings about birth control that are rooted not in a desire for reproduction but for spiritual (openness to God's actions) and sociological (esp. respect for women and marital relationships) reasons. Now I'm not saying I agree with all of those teachings, but we ought to become educated about them before we go misrepresenting them.
--
This bit is the most intelligent thing I've read all day. Thank you.
I'm all for using our genetic knowledge for the betterment of mankind, and if folks want to make infertile people fertile, that is their choice, I suppose. IMHO, though, people don't consider the excellent alternatives enough. It's almost a selfish instinct to want "one's own" children, but it ignores the need and humanity of a whole lot of folks out there.
The argument about passing on "bad genes" is a little frightening, though I'm sure you didn't mean it in the way it may come across.
--
And what do you mean by that? I don't mean to judge, but do you know what you're talking about?
--
Funny you should mention this. It's been implemented in the GNU SuperOptimizer. :)
--
Why in heaven's name would you want to do it that way? A much better approach is to compile those legacy codes into separate modules and provide the language with a way to import those modules with the ABI of the particular legacy system used. C++ can do this to a limited extent with extern "C" and there's no reason someone couldn't implement extern "FORTRAN" or some other such thing (I'm not sure if standard C++ allows extern to specify a calling convention in addition to a linkage, though).
If we really take this to extremes, we might want such a feature to handle interpreted languages as well. It gets a bit tricky around that spot, though. :)
--
Standard C++ fixes some of the performance problems with earlier implementations. For an eye-opener, check out Blitz++, a numerical library written in C++. It performs on par with FORTRAN, sometimes even exceeding FORTRAN's vaunted numerical speed.
Standard C++ can also be much, much faster than C. The standard sorting algorithm is a typical example. std::sort is 250% to 1000% faster than qsort according to one benchmark. It is 20% to 50% faster than a hand-coded C quicksort for a particular data type. I have seen such results elsewhere -- this is just the first page Google turned up.
Yes, std::sort is using inlining to good advantage. That's not "cheating" as some may argue. C++ (and the standard library) provide the efficiency of inlining while maintaining genericity and separation. That's what templates do. It's an intrinsic part of the language. C++ and the standard library help you reduce programmer time (less code to write) and execution time in many important cases.
C++'s combination of static typing, polymorphism and generic programming while maintaining the ability to do "traditional" C-style structured programming is really, really nice. I have my choice of options for coding particular modules and I don't need to learn three different languages to do so. One could even argue that C++ supports a fourth model: with template metaprogramming, one can write C++ code in a style that almost looks like functional programming in the sense that recursion is used exclusively and the code implements functions that do not modify any values. Granted, this form of coding is limited to compile-time values, but it can be used in lots of surprising ways to do things like generate entire class heirarchies automatically.
--
I don't know what a "gesture-based menu" is, but I was using the gesture (stroke) interface of Mentor Graphics (circuit/system CAD) package back in '93. I'm sure it existed even before then.
The nice thing about Mentor is that you can do things in many different ways: menus, keystrokes, gestures, scripts and so forth. It's flexible without being cumbersome. Really, it's probably the best computer user experience I've ever had.
This was with a mouse, BTW, which seemed perfectly natural to me. The middle button initiated a stroke, but I think this was configurable.
--
If people dislike the DVD restrictions so much, why do we buy them?
Why aren't we boycotting this format? Because it won't be effective? Then educate people. I feel no strong urge to run out and buy a DVD player. When you get down to it, there's not really a whole lot of advantage over older formats.
Why DVD?
--
--
Mentor Graphics was the first set of applications that showed me TMTOWTDI. If only Perl would implement it so elegantly... :)
--