how is that a problem? "too far away" isn't an issue unless you have your mouse set for the slowest speed. with windows, you have to aim the mouse vertically at a narrow band under the title of a window that might be placed anywhere on the screen, . with macos, you only have to aim horizontally. the vertical part requires _only_ moving the mouse up. no vertical aim required.
possible? actual. at least in 3.0 (it isn't so 'must-have' for me to keep current) cmd-h is used to "hide" the marching ant effect on the border of whatever you may have selected. quite useful in conjunction with the undo/redo, you can see what the effect will be much more clearly without having to use your imagination or losing your selection.
when it comes to music, 'because you can' is a perfectly acceptable response. the facile example is bach's toccatta in Dm. it was written with the intent of humiliating organists, but quite a few have risen to the occassion over the centuries.
i don't normally quote users outside of a thread, but... "Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away." - Rob Malda (User #1 Info)
also, the musical style is very similar to something i enjoy immensely.
YOU are paying to receive it, YOU are paying to store it, YOU are paying to retrieve it, and YOU are paying to delete it. you have been used. it's all fine and good that they want to make some money for themselves selling some goods/services/scam (who doesn't?), but why should you have to pay for their privilege? spam == theft.
and as for that time spent sorting junkmail not being wasted, well, you could have spent that same time ogling your hot nieghbour, or planning a romantic dinner, or just plain old relaxing.
<bait> stop thinking like a victim </bait> </clue by four>
hey, i'm getting better at rattling this off (i) quickly, and (ii) without getting apoplectic!
Believe it or not, little 12 year old nobheads who rob phones on the street are not currently reprogramming them. There is a third-party who does this. Under current laws, sicne [sic] reprogramming phones is not illegal, its pretty hard to prove that people who do this are doing anything wrong (they would have to know that the phopnes were stolen).
Or, alternately, they'll learn to do it on their own. Thereby scattering the "Industry" and making it harder to track down.
If you want to believe your average 12-16 yo mugger is going to learn how to hack phones, then ok, you win the argument, I cannot argue with you. he doesn't need to believe it. if someone else is reprogramming them, they clearly have tools to do so. the tool can be copied, and what scale of learning is required to use the tool as opposed to making it? compare: i don't know how to write a compiler (yet), but ever since i bought a copy of codewarrior i don't need to know. i would be moronic to think that a 12 year old couldn't figure out how to use these tools in under a week. just because they're young and inexperienced doesn't meant they're dumb.
this is something that is discussed in the original slashdot story, <http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/ 06/12442 04&tid=137>, in particular, these comments <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=35481&cid=3 83 2443> and <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3 5481&cid=383 2458> come to mind. i agree with your predicted outcome: perl 133t 5p34|< will look different from Lotta Indented Silly Parentheses elite speak, wich is probably OK. i mean, if a perl geek is trying to be incomprehensible to other perl programmers, it's probably just as well that the LISPers don't comprehend either.
you seem to be running under the assumption that whoever is "publishing" this information with their computer is a publisher in the traditional sense: someone else (an 'author') gave them data, and they (the 'publisher') put it into a presentation format and make it available to others. but if the publisher is the author, there is no mathematics necessary, just a check of the memory. the only thing that affects the odds here is how much the publisher/author has read/seen/heard that is copyrighted by others and how good their memory is about such things and how honest they are (plagirism is still a punishable offense on most campuses).
i still get a pain behind my left eye whenever i remember stat218, but it seems more likely that if you have k -- # of your publications n -- # of other publications then the length of time it will take to see if what you put out infringes would be
n ^ k, and if i remember my big Oh big theta stuff, this blows up faster than factorials [freaq prays for flame retardant] as you increase the number of items you publish. if the publisher has no creative input on what's being published.
but if that isn't the assumption, oops please correct me.
I also have a gut reaction that copyright doesn't scale, but that's not a reasoned argument on my part. The nitpicker in me couldn't pass up pointing out this apparent non-sequiter in an otherwise excellent argument...
With hundreds of millions of presses out there, all turning out copyrighted works (by the Berne Convention, everything is copyrighted upon creation), it is
mathematically impossible to be aware of and avoid infringement of every other article.
How does the number of presses out there affect whether or not I am aware that the information I publish is (a) my own creative effort or (b) someone else's, and therefore infringing? Or am I missing something in the definition of infringement?
Surely you jest. The reason for 9/11 was a hatred of capitalism. whoah. ease up on the pipe. fact: the us president's secret service detachment allowed him to stay at a well-advertised location when they knew there were at least two hijacked planes in the air, yet they have drilled this scenario for a number of years. fact: the vice president's detachment followed procedure to the letter and forcibly escorted him to a designated 'secure' location. conjecture: the president's team knew that what they were doing would not endanger the president. conjecture: the vp's secret service team wasn't let in on the joke. {cynicism} sorry to ruin your day, but i don't think your president bush hates capitalism. the proles, on the other hand...why do we even let them vote? oh, right, because we don't have to actually count their votes. {/cynicism}
{1} good to see that i'm not the only member of the congregation at our lady of unwarranted assumption. being smart enough is a red herring. i did not deduce how to check email using my massive intellect, i learned how. ok, i was taught, sorry for fibbing mom. similarly, i learned what a.vbs file is. the two events had NOTHING to do with each other, and could have happened in any order.
{2} OE isn't considered to be still in beta, is it? from jargon file 4.3.0:
beta/bay't*/,/be't*/ or (Commonwealth)/bee't*/ n.
1. Mostly working, but still under test; usu. used with `in': `in beta'. In the {Real World}, hardware or software systems often go through two stages of release testing: Alpha (in-house) and Beta (out-house?). Beta releases are generally made to a group of lucky (or unlucky) trusted customers.
2. Anything that is new and experimental. "His girlfriend is in beta" means that he is still testing for compatibility and reserving judgment.
3. Flaky; dubious; suspect (since beta software is notoriously buggy).
oh. right. i'm not sure how your response relates to whackybrit's apparently justified condemnation of outlook. also, he was speaking of a development kernel, not an update.
because it's even money that the average/. reader is _not_ as smart and erudite as you or i believe ourselves to be.
my guess is that chrisd believes that everyone who doesn't understand it should have an opportunity to. i for one was thankful for the presentation because i spent too much time at school trying to optimize tail-recursive algorithms, and not enough time in business courses.
it matters how you learned exactly. i received yahoo's email about the marketing 'preferences' _after_ the prefs had been changed, and _after_ a few days had passed since the kafuffle started here on/. where i first heard about it. this bears repeating:
_after_
it's not unreasonable to suppose the email was composed and sent out in response to the unwanted publicity on the issue. in all fairness, this may not be the case. maybe they just took a few days to get around to me. but my suspicious mind thinks they'd have been happy to not alert me at all.
in retrospect, i'm sorry i deleted the email. if someone hasn't, bring it out. more facts usually make an argument merrier.
it might be more fun if you add that you are migrating from au/x (or beos or whatever you were using). it drives home the point that they had no reason to contact you at all.
there's another reason the commercials are better. "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television", by J. Mander, comes to mind... it's because ad _have_ to be more attention-getting than the shows, and the easiest way to do this is to make them better than the show they are on. it's inherent in the technology and hierarchy of tv. advertisers do not like putting effort into a commercial, only to have it upstaged by a show more memorable than the plug they shelled out their {cough} hard-earned {/cough} coins for. they will not throw money at a show just so that people don't remember their client's corporate logo.
nor i.
this man is in love, and doesn't care much who knows it except in one case: he wants the woman he loves to know it.
10 / 10 for romance.
minus several hundred for discretion.
commander, that rocks. with such an auspicious beginning, you two may not need this, but just in case:
_good_luck_
freaq
strictly harmless, sometimes normal, and very impressed with humans today.
.
somet things just make sense.. and a browser is a part of the OS.
whoah. dude. re-read your basic CS texts. here's a simplistic refresher:
an application is a program that does something (either fun or useful) for a user, presumably at a user's request - eg a firewall running in the background is actually doing something for the user, and i still bless those clever gremlins at id software almost daily for quake.
an operating system's job is to provide an interface between applications and hardware resources, users and applications, or users and hardware resources.
a browser is an application that needs to access hardware (keyboard, modem, etc). it shouldn't need to know what kind or version of modem you have - it should be able to just tell the OS to do something to exchange data with the outside world, and the OS should respond by doing some magic with the modem.
i would have to stretch my imagination pretty far to call any browser a necessary part of an operating system, no matter how useful that browser was in terms of getting things done on my computer. personally, i'm impressed that microsoft has tried to make that the case - the levels of abstractions required to make an app and an os seem to merge must be formidable. the only thing i've seen come close is the macintosh classic "finder", which most users never realize is an application (it doesn't actually _need_ to be running, hello, 80 fps quake!) and not the actual OS - kind of like how windows explorer is an application but not the OS.
but hey, give it a go - my imagination sometimes enjoys calisthenics.
whaoh.
hold on. yes, there were some price wars alluded to over the "spend all yer money now" holidays, but what, pray tell, did the RIAA have do this?
a link perhaps?
freaq
-- my.sig changes sometimes. it's not an identifier.
Slashdot Mirror
! !
i had not thought of that. thanks.
how is that a problem? "too far away" isn't an issue unless you have your mouse set for the slowest speed. with windows, you have to aim the mouse vertically at a narrow band under the title of a window that might be placed anywhere on the screen, . with macos, you only have to aim horizontally. the vertical part requires _only_ moving the mouse up. no vertical aim required.
possible? actual. at least in 3.0 (it isn't so 'must-have' for me to keep current) cmd-h is used to "hide" the marching ant effect on the border of whatever you may have selected. quite useful in conjunction with the undo/redo, you can see what the effect will be much more clearly without having to use your imagination or losing your selection.
whoah. a parking monitor? i _have_ been out of the loop.
when it comes to music, 'because you can' is a perfectly acceptable response. the facile example is bach's toccatta in Dm. it was written with the intent of humiliating organists, but quite a few have risen to the occassion over the centuries.
i don't normally quote users outside of a thread, but...
"Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away." - Rob Malda
(User #1 Info)
also, the musical style is very similar to something i enjoy immensely.
YOU are paying to receive it, YOU are paying to store it, YOU are paying to retrieve it, and YOU are paying to delete it. you have been used. it's all fine and good that they want to make some money for themselves selling some goods/services/scam (who doesn't?), but why should you have to pay for their privilege? spam == theft.
and as for that time spent sorting junkmail not being wasted, well, you could have spent that same time ogling your hot nieghbour, or planning a romantic dinner, or just plain old relaxing.
<bait> stop thinking like a victim </bait>
</clue by four>
hey, i'm getting better at rattling this off (i) quickly, and (ii) without getting apoplectic!
a friend and i were discussing the peltier case recently, and a good question came up: or, for that matter, to any country?
i've always thought of HTML as
<foo> <!--this is where foo begins >
this sidebar is foo'd
</foo> <!--this is where foo ends >
so, should i take a real course or is my conceptualization too far removed from reality to benefit from guidance?
excuse me, do you mean
</pedantry>
?
Believe it or not, little 12 year old nobheads who rob phones on the street are not currently reprogramming them. There is a third-party who does this. Under current laws, sicne [sic] reprogramming phones is not illegal, its pretty hard to prove that people who do this are doing anything wrong (they would have to know that the phopnes were stolen).
If you want to believe your average 12-16 yo mugger is going to learn how to hack phones, then ok, you win the argument, I cannot argue with you.
he doesn't need to believe it. if someone else is reprogramming them, they clearly have tools to do so. the tool can be copied, and what scale of learning is required to use the tool as opposed to making it? compare: i don't know how to write a compiler (yet), but ever since i bought a copy of codewarrior i don't need to know.
i would be moronic to think that a 12 year old couldn't figure out how to use these tools in under a week. just because they're young and inexperienced doesn't meant they're dumb.
namely, Establishing the Maximum Speed of a CD-ROM Drive on 19 april /. archives?
c'mon, chrisd, is it too much to look over michaels's shoulder once in a while, or search the
--
cecil was wondering, so we set up a poll. what do you think?
or you need to get out more.
--
what do YOU think?
a simple poll.
cecil wants to know.
this is something that is discussed in the original slashdot story,/ 06/12442 04&tid=137>,3 83 2443>3 5481&cid=383 2458>
<http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07
in particular, these comments
<http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=35481&cid=
and
<http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=
come to mind. i agree with your predicted outcome: perl 133t 5p34|< will look different from Lotta Indented Silly Parentheses elite speak, wich is probably OK.
i mean, if a perl geek is trying to be incomprehensible to other perl programmers, it's probably just as well that the LISPers don't comprehend either.
you seem to be running under the assumption that whoever is "publishing" this information with their computer is a publisher in the traditional sense: someone else (an 'author') gave them data, and they (the 'publisher') put it into a presentation format and make it available to others. but if the publisher is the author, there is no mathematics necessary, just a check of the memory. the only thing that affects the odds here is how much the publisher/author has read/seen/heard that is copyrighted by others and how good their memory is about such things and how honest they are (plagirism is still a punishable offense on most campuses).
,
i still get a pain behind my left eye whenever i remember stat218, but it seems more likely that if you have
k -- # of your publications
n -- # of other publications
then the length of time it will take to see if what you put out infringes would be
n ^ k
and if i remember my big Oh big theta stuff, this blows up faster than factorials [freaq prays for flame retardant] as you increase the number of items you publish. if the publisher has no creative input on what's being published.
but if that isn't the assumption, oops please correct me.
Or am I missing something in the definition of infringement?
Surely you jest. The reason for 9/11 was a hatred of capitalism.
whoah. ease up on the pipe. fact: the us president's secret service detachment allowed him to stay at a well-advertised location when they knew there were at least two hijacked planes in the air, yet they have drilled this scenario for a number of years. fact: the vice president's detachment followed procedure to the letter and forcibly escorted him to a designated 'secure' location.
conjecture: the president's team knew that what they were doing would not endanger the president.
conjecture: the vp's secret service team wasn't let in on the joke.
{cynicism}
sorry to ruin your day, but i don't think your president bush hates capitalism. the proles, on the other hand...why do we even let them vote? oh, right, because we don't have to actually count their votes.
{/cynicism}
{1} .vbs file is. the two events had NOTHING to do with each other, and could have happened in any order.
/bay't*/, /be't*/ or (Commonwealth) /bee't*/ n.
good to see that i'm not the only member of the congregation at our lady of unwarranted assumption.
being smart enough is a red herring. i did not deduce how to check email using my massive intellect, i learned how. ok, i was taught, sorry for fibbing mom. similarly, i learned what a
{2}
OE isn't considered to be still in beta, is it? from jargon file 4.3.0:
beta
1. Mostly working, but still under test; usu. used with `in': `in beta'. In the {Real World}, hardware or software systems often go through two stages of release testing: Alpha (in-house) and Beta (out-house?). Beta releases are generally made to a group of lucky (or unlucky) trusted customers.
2. Anything that is new and experimental. "His girlfriend is in beta" means that he is still testing for compatibility and reserving judgment.
3. Flaky; dubious; suspect (since beta software is notoriously buggy).
oh. right.
i'm not sure how your response relates to whackybrit's apparently justified condemnation of outlook. also, he was speaking of a development kernel, not an update.
because it's even money that the average /. reader is _not_ as smart and erudite as you or i believe ourselves to be.
my guess is that chrisd believes that everyone who doesn't understand it should have an opportunity to. i for one was thankful for the presentation because i spent too much time at school trying to optimize tail-recursive algorithms, and not enough time in business courses.
it matters how you learned /. where i first heard about it.
exactly. i received yahoo's email about the marketing 'preferences' _after_ the prefs had been changed, and _after_ a few days had passed since the kafuffle started here on
this bears repeating:
_after_
it's not unreasonable to suppose the email was composed and sent out in response to the unwanted publicity on the issue. in all fairness, this may not be the case. maybe they just took a few days to get around to me. but my suspicious mind thinks they'd have been happy to not alert me at all.
in retrospect, i'm sorry i deleted the email. if someone hasn't, bring it out. more facts usually make an argument merrier.
it might be more fun if you add that you are migrating from au/x (or beos or whatever you were using). it drives home the point that they had no reason to contact you at all.
there's another reason the commercials are better. "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television", by J. Mander, comes to mind... it's because ad _have_ to be more attention-getting than the shows, and the easiest way to do this is to make them better than the show they are on. it's inherent in the technology and hierarchy of tv. advertisers do not like putting effort into a commercial, only to have it upstaged by a show more memorable than the plug they shelled out their {cough} hard-earned {/cough} coins for. they will not throw money at a show just so that people don't remember their client's corporate logo.
i got tired of having to choose the lesser of two evils, so i summ^H^H^H^Hvoted for Cthulhu, the Greater Evil.
nor i.
this man is in love, and doesn't care much who knows it except in one case: he wants the woman he loves to know it.
10 / 10 for romance.
minus several hundred for discretion.
commander, that rocks. with such an auspicious beginning, you two may not need this, but just in case:
_good_luck_
freaq
strictly harmless, sometimes normal, and very impressed with humans today.
.
somet things just make sense.. and a browser is a part of the OS.
whoah. dude. re-read your basic CS texts. here's a simplistic refresher:
an application is a program that does something (either fun or useful) for a user, presumably at a user's request - eg a firewall running in the background is actually doing something for the user, and i still bless those clever gremlins at id software almost daily for quake.
an operating system's job is to provide an interface between applications and hardware resources, users and applications, or users and hardware resources.
a browser is an application that needs to access hardware (keyboard, modem, etc). it shouldn't need to know what kind or version of modem you have - it should be able to just tell the OS to do something to exchange data with the outside world, and the OS should respond by doing some magic with the modem.
i would have to stretch my imagination pretty far to call any browser a necessary part of an operating system, no matter how useful that browser was in terms of getting things done on my computer. personally, i'm impressed that microsoft has tried to make that the case - the levels of abstractions required to make an app and an os seem to merge must be formidable. the only thing i've seen come close is the macintosh classic "finder", which most users never realize is an application (it doesn't actually _need_ to be running, hello, 80 fps quake!) and not the actual OS - kind of like how windows explorer is an application but not the OS.
but hey, give it a go - my imagination sometimes enjoys calisthenics.
famazza,
.sig changes sometimes. it's not an identifier.
whaoh.
hold on. yes, there were some price wars alluded to over the "spend all yer money now" holidays, but what, pray tell, did the RIAA have do this?
a link perhaps?
freaq
-- my