YES IT COSTS US$7000 TO SET UP GUARANTEED MONEY MAKING SCAM. WE WISH TO START SUCH A SCAM. HOWEVER, BY VIRTUE OF OUR POSITION AS CIVIL SERVANTS AND MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL, WE CANNOT ACQUIRE THIS MONEY IN OUR NAMES. I HAVE THEREFORE, BEEN DELEGATED AS A MATTER OF TRUST BY MY COLLEAGUES OF THE PANEL TO LOOK FOR AN OVERSEAS PARTNER INTO WHOSE ACCOUNT WE WOULD TRANSFER THE SUM OF US$21,320,000.00(TWENTY ONE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND U.S DOLLARS). HENCE WE ARE WRITING YOU THIS LETTER. WE HAVE AGREED TO SHARE THE MONEY THUS; 1. 20% FOR THE ACCOUNT OWNER 2. 70% FOR US (THE OFFICIALS) 3. 10% TO BE USED IN SETTLING TAXATION AND ALL LOCAL AND FOREIGN EXPENSES. IT IS FROM THE 70% THAT WE WISH TO COMMENCE THE SCAM.
PLEASE,NOTE THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% SAFE AND WE HOPE TO COMMENCE THE TRANSFER LATEST SEVEN (7) BANKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIOM BY TEL/FAX; 234-1-7740449, YOUR COMPANY'S SIGNED, AND STAMPED LETTERHEAD PAPER THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL ENABLE US WRITE LETTERS OF CLAIM AND JOB DESCRIPTION RESPECTIVELY. THIS WAY WE WILL USE YOUR COMPANY'S NAME TO APPLY FOR PAYMENT AND RE-AWARD THE CONTRACT IN YOUR COMPANY'S NAME.
WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING THIS BUSINESS WITH YOU AND SOLICIT YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY IN THIS TRANSATION. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER USING THE ABOVE TEL/FAX NUMBERS. I WILL SEND YOU DETAILED INFORMATION OF THIS PENDING PROJECT WHEN I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU.
YOURS FAITHFULLY,
DR CLEMENT OKON
NOTE; PLEASE QUOTE THIS REFERENCE NUMBER (VE/S/09/99) IN ALL YOUR RESPONSES
>> That, I haven't noticed. Therefore, MS was right to remove it, and I'll argue that you should change your habits.
> You're arguing that moving the functionality from one part of the screen to another is a reduction of value, and then claiming that removing functionality entirely was the right thing to do. Remarkable.
Old thread now, but just to clear this up,/. ate my </sarc> tag at the end of my line, since your arguments seemed to be "if it doesn't affect me, then why are you complaining?"
I agree that the changes seem arbitrary, but disagree that they reduce value
Absolutely not true. Telnet had some value, and it was removed. Unless you consider an extra 75k "value" equal to a network diagnostic tool used by a ton of administrators, then they really did reduce value.
Same goes for the Up button. It's obviously reduced value for a number of people on this thread, at the "added value" of a tiny bit of screen real estate.
The only area where I genuinely agree that they reduced value was in eliminating the horizontal scrollbar in Explorer
That, I haven't noticed. Therefore, MS was right to remove it, and I'll argue that you should change your habits
In any case, "arbitrary" changes *are* a reduction of value, since it required the entire user base to realign their expectations. If there aren't significant *gains* of value, then any given feature should be left alone.
There are other ways to do this that don't require specific hardware. Google "Vista breadcrumbs". It takes 30 seconds to get used to it, but it's perfectly effective.
Did you even read the article (guess: no)? - when you've got directory names that are half or more the length of the address bar, the breadcrumbs are useless.
Personally, I agree with most of the article's arguments. It seems that there are a lot of arbitrary changes that add no value whatsoever, and reduce value for a significant number of users. I mean, seriously - how much space did telnet take up that it was worth removing it?
Have you ever been in the situation where you meet with a client's developers, and they have no idea what they're doing? You say "TCP", they hear "Let's go for coffee"? And at that point, you know that the project is doomed.
I wonder if that's what the RIAA has. They've got the business guys and the lobbyists to put weight on the lawmakers, but when it comes to applying the law itself, they've hired a bunch of guys who are the equivalent of an MCSE with a mail-order diploma?
If you have time, try writing your own constructs instead of using the ones provided by whatever environment you're in. You're reinventing the wheel, but until you've reinvented it, chances are you don't truly understand it. Linked lists, events - even graphics libraries.
When you're in the "real world", you can start to trade off convenience for experience, but take this opportunity to make as many basic mistakes as possible while you have the chance.
Honestly, there are still a number of HTML components I prefer to use tables for. Maybe it has to do with the "old days" of developing with NS 4.7 in mind, but I don't think so.
There are a number of constructs that just fall into place more easily with tables. And let's face it - the table is an extremely intuitive widget. Maybe it wasn't originally designed for layout, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
I've designed both with and without tables and been able to get reasonably good results with both, but tables have always been 100x easier to work with.
Don't forget that politicians often don't keep their constituents' needs in mind. Depending on the level of stupidity, the stupids could vote in someone who promises to carry them, but instead buys a million pairs of shoes for his wife. No one will object because "God told me to" is a perfectly legitimate answer.
I mean, I know that it's "common knowledge" that only the stupid breed, but can you actually source it?
And you have to look more than one generation ahead. If a "stupid" couple have 5 kids can this happen? - One dies after eating styrofoam - One ends up in jail - One ends up on the streets - One ends up with the slightly-better genes, goes to community college, and scores a reasonably-intelligent wife/husband - One dumbass knocks up another dumbass and they have 5 more kids
In the end, those 5 kids are a wash - one's genes enter "normal" society, and only one of them carries on the pattern.
I know there are the outlier 15-kid brood-mares out there, but I really do think they are outliers. I'm really not as pessimistic about the future as, say, Idiocracy, because
- Smart people are still having kids, and will continue to have kids. This will not stop (natural selection - the smart people in 20 years will be the offspring of smart people who wanted kids)
- If the pattern does continue to extremes, then the extremely smart will have no problem managing the extremely stupid. Look at how often this happens today (cults, Nigeria scams, televangelists). We may see a decrease in *morals* - particularly towards the dumb - but not in an intelligent caste.
- Carried even further into the future, the extremely-dumb could never take care of themselves on their own. As soon as the extremely-smart decide to stop carrying them, they would be dead by their own incompetence.
Look, not to piss away your carefully-crafted logic here, but have you paused to consider that maybe the lung cancer was caused by violent video games, and it's just a coincidence that they were also smokers?
I refuse to vote for the lessor of two evils, and thus, will never vote for (D) or (R) again. Don't blame me for our government, I didn't vote for any of our leaders.
This is the sentiment I was originally referring to. The solution is *not* less voting. That just makes the existing two parties more entrenched. The solution is to get involved in the primaries and vote in people - not parties.
But the idea that "voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil" is ridiculous. One of them's going to get in. Maybe the members of both parties screwed up during the primaries by not selecting a decent candidate, but that doesn't mean that there's no difference, or that one candidate won't do horribly worse than the other.
They aren't both bought by the same players, but they are both bought.
But *everyone's* bought to some degree or another. And I really do think that this "both sides are the same" rhetoric is both wrong and dangerous. Even if both sides don't have the absolute best interests in mind, there is certainly a lesser of two evils.
1) Can you produce a single source for your "did not produce a Canadian passport" claim?
2) It's not the US/Canada's fault that the Syrian gov't tortured him the same way you can toss someone in a shark tank and claim it's "not your fault" he got eaten. You have to accept some blame if you knew what was going to happen, and did nothing to prevent it.
3) Is a society where forgetting your papers can lead to being tortured for a year a good thing? This should *never* happen. It's like the police "accidentally" taking a peaceful protester out into the street and shooting them in the back of the head. Maybe everyone followed every gov't policy there was, and 99.9% of the population will never experience it. - it's still something that should *never* happen.
"One side of the story"? What possible side could he have that justifies FUCKING TORTURE?
2nd paragraph: "even though he was carrying a Canadian passport."
It's hardly the US's or Canada's fault that the Syrian government tortured him Except that it was known at the time he was being deported that he would be tortured.
But I guess I agree with you. If you're a dual citizen - even in a country where that's legal - you should be deported and tortured. You obviously have it coming.
That's fair enough - the internet really is a series of tubes, discounting wireless. But I think you may be underestimating the number of people who use the tubes reference as I do - the whole speech.
But I also think you're being too forgiving, considering that this was specifically about a wide-ranging internet issue - network neutrality. If a mayor were talking about the fire dept and referred to "fire guys" using a "fire pipe" while driving their "big red taxis", he'd would be rightfully ridiculed. I don't expect lawmakers to be experts in everything - almost by definition they must be generalists - but they should have a grasp of basic terminology.
I can't speak for anyone but me, but if Stevens had simply referred to "tubes", I would have let it slide. Referring to "tubes" is simply a shorthand to the whole dumbassed speech, which included him "getting an internet from an aide". An "internet" that didn't reach him for days, because the "tubes were clogged up".
Slashdot Mirror
YES IT COSTS US$7000 TO SET UP GUARANTEED MONEY MAKING SCAM. WE WISH TO START SUCH A SCAM. HOWEVER, BY VIRTUE OF OUR POSITION AS CIVIL SERVANTS AND MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL, WE CANNOT ACQUIRE THIS MONEY IN OUR NAMES. I HAVE THEREFORE, BEEN DELEGATED AS A MATTER OF TRUST BY MY COLLEAGUES OF THE PANEL TO LOOK FOR AN OVERSEAS PARTNER INTO WHOSE ACCOUNT WE WOULD TRANSFER THE SUM OF US$21,320,000.00(TWENTY ONE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND U.S DOLLARS). HENCE WE ARE WRITING YOU THIS LETTER. WE HAVE AGREED TO SHARE THE MONEY THUS; 1. 20% FOR THE ACCOUNT OWNER 2. 70% FOR US (THE OFFICIALS) 3. 10% TO BE USED IN SETTLING TAXATION AND ALL LOCAL AND FOREIGN EXPENSES. IT IS FROM THE 70% THAT WE WISH TO COMMENCE THE SCAM.
PLEASE,NOTE THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% SAFE AND WE HOPE TO COMMENCE THE TRANSFER LATEST SEVEN (7) BANKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIOM BY TEL/FAX; 234-1-7740449, YOUR COMPANY'S SIGNED, AND STAMPED LETTERHEAD PAPER THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL ENABLE US WRITE LETTERS OF CLAIM AND JOB DESCRIPTION RESPECTIVELY. THIS WAY WE WILL USE YOUR COMPANY'S NAME TO APPLY FOR PAYMENT AND RE-AWARD THE CONTRACT IN YOUR COMPANY'S NAME.
WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING THIS BUSINESS WITH YOU AND SOLICIT YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY IN THIS TRANSATION. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER USING THE ABOVE TEL/FAX NUMBERS. I WILL SEND YOU DETAILED INFORMATION OF THIS PENDING PROJECT WHEN I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU.
YOURS FAITHFULLY,
DR CLEMENT OKON
NOTE; PLEASE QUOTE THIS REFERENCE NUMBER (VE/S/09/99) IN ALL YOUR RESPONSES
Even the simplest laws of physics - gravity, force etc.. - had to be written by someone.
Why?
So, in their minds, the counter-argument to your proposal simply boils down to "Well, one is truth, and the rest is bullshit."
Pretty much, but can I just tweak this a bit to read "Every time X has gone up against Y, Y has been right, X has been bullshit."?
>> That, I haven't noticed. Therefore, MS was right to remove it, and I'll argue that you should change your habits.
/. ate my </sarc> tag at the end of my line, since your arguments seemed to be "if it doesn't affect me, then why are you complaining?"
> You're arguing that moving the functionality from one part of the screen to another is a reduction of value, and then claiming that removing functionality entirely was the right thing to do. Remarkable.
Old thread now, but just to clear this up,
I agree that the changes seem arbitrary, but disagree that they reduce value
Absolutely not true. Telnet had some value, and it was removed. Unless you consider an extra 75k "value" equal to a network diagnostic tool used by a ton of administrators, then they really did reduce value.
Same goes for the Up button. It's obviously reduced value for a number of people on this thread, at the "added value" of a tiny bit of screen real estate.
The only area where I genuinely agree that they reduced value was in eliminating the horizontal scrollbar in Explorer
That, I haven't noticed. Therefore, MS was right to remove it, and I'll argue that you should change your habits
In any case, "arbitrary" changes *are* a reduction of value, since it required the entire user base to realign their expectations. If there aren't significant *gains* of value, then any given feature should be left alone.
There are other ways to do this that don't require specific hardware. Google "Vista breadcrumbs". It takes 30 seconds to get used to it, but it's perfectly effective.
Did you even read the article (guess: no)? - when you've got directory names that are half or more the length of the address bar, the breadcrumbs are useless.
Personally, I agree with most of the article's arguments. It seems that there are a lot of arbitrary changes that add no value whatsoever, and reduce value for a significant number of users. I mean, seriously - how much space did telnet take up that it was worth removing it?
Have you ever been in the situation where you meet with a client's developers, and they have no idea what they're doing? You say "TCP", they hear "Let's go for coffee"? And at that point, you know that the project is doomed.
I wonder if that's what the RIAA has. They've got the business guys and the lobbyists to put weight on the lawmakers, but when it comes to applying the law itself, they've hired a bunch of guys who are the equivalent of an MCSE with a mail-order diploma?
If you have time, try writing your own constructs instead of using the ones provided by whatever environment you're in. You're reinventing the wheel, but until you've reinvented it, chances are you don't truly understand it. Linked lists, events - even graphics libraries.
When you're in the "real world", you can start to trade off convenience for experience, but take this opportunity to make as many basic mistakes as possible while you have the chance.
Wow - you're getting some pretty useless answers to your very legitimate question.
Anyway, to answer your question, God did it.
Honestly, there are still a number of HTML components I prefer to use tables for. Maybe it has to do with the "old days" of developing with NS 4.7 in mind, but I don't think so.
There are a number of constructs that just fall into place more easily with tables. And let's face it - the table is an extremely intuitive widget. Maybe it wasn't originally designed for layout, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
I've designed both with and without tables and been able to get reasonably good results with both, but tables have always been 100x easier to work with.
Don't forget that politicians often don't keep their constituents' needs in mind. Depending on the level of stupidity, the stupids could vote in someone who promises to carry them, but instead buys a million pairs of shoes for his wife. No one will object because "God told me to" is a perfectly legitimate answer.
Can you source this?
I mean, I know that it's "common knowledge" that only the stupid breed, but can you actually source it?
And you have to look more than one generation ahead. If a "stupid" couple have 5 kids can this happen?
- One dies after eating styrofoam
- One ends up in jail
- One ends up on the streets
- One ends up with the slightly-better genes, goes to community college, and scores a reasonably-intelligent wife/husband
- One dumbass knocks up another dumbass and they have 5 more kids
In the end, those 5 kids are a wash - one's genes enter "normal" society, and only one of them carries on the pattern.
I know there are the outlier 15-kid brood-mares out there, but I really do think they are outliers. I'm really not as pessimistic about the future as, say, Idiocracy, because
- Smart people are still having kids, and will continue to have kids. This will not stop (natural selection - the smart people in 20 years will be the offspring of smart people who wanted kids)
- If the pattern does continue to extremes, then the extremely smart will have no problem managing the extremely stupid. Look at how often this happens today (cults, Nigeria scams, televangelists). We may see a decrease in *morals* - particularly towards the dumb - but not in an intelligent caste.
- Carried even further into the future, the extremely-dumb could never take care of themselves on their own. As soon as the extremely-smart decide to stop carrying them, they would be dead by their own incompetence.
Look, not to piss away your carefully-crafted logic here, but have you paused to consider that maybe the lung cancer was caused by violent video games, and it's just a coincidence that they were also smokers?
Dumbass.
00:00:01 - this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen
00:00:02 - however, the sheer amount of work you put into that is hilarious. Well done.
I refuse to vote for the lessor of two evils, and thus, will never vote for (D) or (R) again. Don't blame me for our government, I didn't vote for any of our leaders.
This is the sentiment I was originally referring to. The solution is *not* less voting. That just makes the existing two parties more entrenched. The solution is to get involved in the primaries and vote in people - not parties.
But the idea that "voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil" is ridiculous. One of them's going to get in. Maybe the members of both parties screwed up during the primaries by not selecting a decent candidate, but that doesn't mean that there's no difference, or that one candidate won't do horribly worse than the other.
They aren't both bought by the same players, but they are both bought.
But *everyone's* bought to some degree or another. And I really do think that this "both sides are the same" rhetoric is both wrong and dangerous. Even if both sides don't have the absolute best interests in mind, there is certainly a lesser of two evils.
so because some jerk was flying around using the apparently wrong ID
Alright, third time's a charm. Unless you can back this up with documentation, we're done here.
And in case you haven't figured it out, it doesn't matter if you voted for (D) or (R), you get basically the same thing.
You honestly think Gore would have started 2 wars after 9/11?
Righto - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on "Syrians deserve to be tortured because they're Syrian" point.
1) Can you produce a single source for your "did not produce a Canadian passport" claim?
2) It's not the US/Canada's fault that the Syrian gov't tortured him the same way you can toss someone in a shark tank and claim it's "not your fault" he got eaten. You have to accept some blame if you knew what was going to happen, and did nothing to prevent it.
3) Is a society where forgetting your papers can lead to being tortured for a year a good thing? This should *never* happen. It's like the police "accidentally" taking a peaceful protester out into the street and shooting them in the back of the head. Maybe everyone followed every gov't policy there was, and 99.9% of the population will never experience it. - it's still something that should *never* happen.
"One side of the story"? What possible side could he have that justifies FUCKING TORTURE?
deported to Syria for failing to produce a Canadian passport
First Google result for "Maher Arar canadian passport".
2nd paragraph:
"even though he was carrying a Canadian passport."
It's hardly the US's or Canada's fault that the Syrian government tortured him
Except that it was known at the time he was being deported that he would be tortured.
But I guess I agree with you. If you're a dual citizen - even in a country where that's legal - you should be deported and tortured. You obviously have it coming.
That's fair enough - the internet really is a series of tubes, discounting wireless. But I think you may be underestimating the number of people who use the tubes reference as I do - the whole speech.
But I also think you're being too forgiving, considering that this was specifically about a wide-ranging internet issue - network neutrality. If a mayor were talking about the fire dept and referred to "fire guys" using a "fire pipe" while driving their "big red taxis", he'd would be rightfully ridiculed. I don't expect lawmakers to be experts in everything - almost by definition they must be generalists - but they should have a grasp of basic terminology.
Yet, you pull one aside for questioning and all of a sudden it's the inquisition...
No, you pull one aside for questioning, and then send him to Syria for torture. Then it's an inquisition.
I can't speak for anyone but me, but if Stevens had simply referred to "tubes", I would have let it slide. Referring to "tubes" is simply a shorthand to the whole dumbassed speech, which included him "getting an internet from an aide". An "internet" that didn't reach him for days, because the "tubes were clogged up".
Okay, what degree of fascism is coercing confessions from innocents, and then classifying that the confessions were coerced? 6/10?
Fine - I'll tag this fascism_6of10. Stories from Venezuela, I'll tag fascism_9of10. Better?