It's not incompatible at all. The fingers are a lot like the mechanics in question. It's often easier to alternate fingers than to keep using the same hand for sequences of keys.
Of course, if someone can come out with a "programmer's layout", that might be pretty cool. Shift+anything shouldn't be default when it's 90% of the keys you type (see perl)
Yeah - I saw it a few weeks ago. After posting though, I looked at the poor guy's user# and can't help but think he's been through it all before, many many times.
The skit goes along the lines of "Today we have famed artist, Arthur 'Two Sheds' Jackson". The nickname came from the fact that he had *thought* of maybe getting another shed, but in the end, had decided not to. And the interviewer won't let go of the nickname. Funny to watch, pretty boring to read on/. I'm sure.
Deals: Knives That Cut Things Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday July 10, @ 02:38PM From the slashdot-the-phones dept. PissedCellUser writes "I've just received a great offer for the most wonderful knives. These scientifically-perfected beauties will cut through anything from carrots to tin cans! There's a wealth of information at their website, and you can call their marketers directly at (555)555-SPAM and ask them questions to your hearts content. I think Linux is great, and Microsoft sucks.
It's going to be difficult to assert that you setup a file-sharing client with no intent to download anything else
True, but they're separate transactions. You gain nothing from sharing your files, so there's no "financial gain". People can download from you, and you can download from them, but there's no correlation between the two except that they're done by the same program.
Communism has never worked, true, but I take issue with this phrase:
Both are evil totalitarian ideologies
Maybe "both create evil totalitarian governments", but the ideologies themselves are hardly totalitarian. It's a nitpick, yes, but I'd like separation between the ideology - which could be considered utopian but utterly utterly unworkable - and the results of putting such a system in place - which results in an evil totalitarian government.
I can think of a few other ways. They're not as, um, abrupt as your suggestions, but they would probably work. Social engineering, pure and simple. Ad campaigns, changes to tax laws, a general public awareness.
I don't think population control would be such a hard thing in developed countries if you took it slow and gave it a chance to sink in. The undeveloped and developing countries are where it would break down. And, of course, that's where most of the population is coming from at the moment...so I guess I'm arguing a moot point now. Damn.
B contains a negative quality - it isn't a "negative" itself, in the sense of negating anything. It's only by arbitrarily assigning something good to be "positive" and something bad to be "negative" that you can make that argument.
That's precisely why standards exist. Why should anyone waste money and time developing multiple browser-specific versions of a site, when a single standards-based site that supports all browsers will work just as well, for far less money?
This is the second time this argument has come up in this thread. It's a great point, but it has nothing to do with the original post. If I had a choice at getting 3 jobs done that worked perfectly on IE and sub-par (to varying degrees) on 3% of the browsers out there, or a single job that worked perfectly in all browsers, I'd take the former. Every time. Standards are a great idea. They should be used. They should be conformed to. But when the use of a standards breaks *98% of running browsers*, you have to make a choice.
I fully agree that MS is screwing the community by ignoring standards. But it's just another example of using their monopoly to crush competition. I'll fight on other ground. I use OSS all the time now. But when it comes down to affecting the way I live and make money, my principles can suck it. I don't care about the movement enough to cut my performance in 3, especially when many of the alternative browsers out there will do just fine.
Then your clients' customers should switch ISPs. If my ISP was blocking porn, and I had an interest in it, then I would switch, or demand that I be allowed to receive whatever I want. Just like porn, though, some people find spam offensive, and want it stopped before it reaches their box. Don't get me wrong - I'd stop using and ISP that blocked pages I'd specifically requested, but mail I *didn't* request is far more offensive in my opinion, and I consider it a bonus feature if it's blocked.
A business relationship is between a business and a customer, and both parties should want to continue it in order for that relationship to continue. If the customer doesn't even care enough to demand that he be allowed to receive your mail, you don't have much of a relationship. If that screws your business model, then perhaps your business model could use some fine-tuning.
He still didn't "get it" though. People didn't hate Jar Jar because he was a half-witted idiot, IMO. C3PO was just as bad in his own way - a constantly pessimistic robot who never did anything to advance the plot but translate for his intelligent counterpart.
People hated Jar Jar because of the way he was allowed to dominate scenes. I don't want pure "comedy" scenes in my adventure movies. It completely breaks the flow. In the first three movies, C3PO's comments were integrated into the action. He never dominated the conversation or the action, as Jar Jar did in the first movie.
Which brings me to why Lucas still doesn't get it. In episode 2, C3PO dominates the screen with "comedy" with his own stupid sub-plot about his head getting replaced with a killer-droid's. It was the one horrific wish-I-weren't-there part of the movie. Especially with lines like "I feel beside myself". While it was much better, C3PO was still the "Jar Jar" of Episode 2.
I noticed this too. It's not even a matter of bad sounds, it's about bad *quality* sound. I've been seriously considering borrowing the Good Microphone from a friend and getting a good sound set in there.
Good quality CD = 5 guys, 1 computer, 1 good recording device, 1 good sound software package.
Good quality game = 50 guys, 50 computers, 50 specialized software packages (at least, probably more than one per user).
Time to make good quality CD (if done right and the musicians know their stuff) : Say a week of recording, full time. And even this is quite long. Add on a week of mixing, full time, for only one guy.
Time to make a good game : Blizzard's team has been working on Warcraft3 for well over a year now.
Doesn't matter if you include the producers, engineers, etc, there's no way you're getting a year of work from 50 guys to create a CD.
You know, I laughed at first...
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 1
...before realizing that's the absolute best way to "cancel" your service. I will remember that if I ever have a similar experience.
You can talk about "moral repugnance" all you want, but it's not going to affect anyone who wants to do this. The idea that something is "morally" wrong has been used throughout the ages to condemn practices such as homosexuality, and even mathematics. There are some religions that have strong beliefs against blood transfusions, and would rather let their child die than allow a transfusion.
So to take a different angle. Why is this patentable? I mean, the techniques are already there. They've done it with a sheep and a goat. Why is this so incredibly innovative about a humouse that it deserves protection for 20 years? I'd think that the idea would be quite obvious to any expert in the field who had a need of a human/mouse hybrid. While the "moral repugnance" angle works well for getting the attention of Congress, I think that a lot of the patenting of life is just another symptom of the problems with patents in general: (1) They're given out without too much examination/understanding by the patent clerk. (2) 20 years? A lot of inventions nowadays become obsolete after 10, if not 5 years of production. There should be some mechanism to set the time limit differently for different inventions (eg 2-5 years for software patents).
See - you lose the Simpsons either way. Either Groening takes your advice and stops the episodes, or you stop watching because it's not fun anymore. You can say it "jumped the shark" all you want, but it's not going to change how it's produced one bit.
I've personally noticed that it's changed, but I don't think that it's for better or for worse. Yes - they've overdone Homer being stupid, as they overdid Bart-the-smartass in seasons one and two. They'll move on to something else when people get bored of this. Hopefully concentrating on the fringe characters a bit more - I mean, the newest one is what? Disco Stu? And he's been around for years now.
There are very few episodes I've watched that weren't worth watching. There have been one or two every season for the past 4 or 5 years that have just been a waste of my time, but there have also been the one or two brilliant ones. In any case, I'm just glad there's still something to watch on Sundays. I think we all know in our heart of hearts that when the Simpsons is gone, it won't be replaced by quality.
Slashdot Mirror
It's true - I hadn't even *thought* of hiding a bomb in a laptop until all of this happened.
You wanted the other story. This is about music.
It's not incompatible at all. The fingers are a lot like the mechanics in question. It's often easier to alternate fingers than to keep using the same hand for sequences of keys.
Of course, if someone can come out with a "programmer's layout", that might be pretty cool. Shift+anything shouldn't be default when it's 90% of the keys you type (see perl)
With the 150% exchange rate and the rapid exodus of web programmers from the US, you might as well live in Canada and fill the US void from there!
Yeah - I saw it a few weeks ago. After posting though, I looked at the poor guy's user# and can't help but think he's been through it all before, many many times.
/. I'm sure.
The skit goes along the lines of "Today we have famed artist, Arthur 'Two Sheds' Jackson". The nickname came from the fact that he had *thought* of maybe getting another shed, but in the end, had decided not to. And the interviewer won't let go of the nickname. Funny to watch, pretty boring to read on
Two-sheds - that's an interesting nickname. So...do you - in fact - own two sheds?
Ottawa was 46 with the Humidex yesterday.
It's going to be difficult to assert that you setup a file-sharing client with no intent to download anything else
True, but they're separate transactions. You gain nothing from sharing your files, so there's no "financial gain". People can download from you, and you can download from them, but there's no correlation between the two except that they're done by the same program.
Communism has never worked, true, but I take issue with this phrase :
Both are evil totalitarian ideologies
Maybe "both create evil totalitarian governments", but the ideologies themselves are hardly totalitarian. It's a nitpick, yes, but I'd like separation between the ideology - which could be considered utopian but utterly utterly unworkable - and the results of putting such a system in place - which results in an evil totalitarian government.
I can think of a few other ways. They're not as, um, abrupt as your suggestions, but they would probably work. Social engineering, pure and simple. Ad campaigns, changes to tax laws, a general public awareness.
I don't think population control would be such a hard thing in developed countries if you took it slow and gave it a chance to sink in. The undeveloped and developing countries are where it would break down. And, of course, that's where most of the population is coming from at the moment...so I guess I'm arguing a moot point now. Damn.
I wouldn't purport to be an expert on such things, but in astronomical terms, might "only just smaller" mean an order of magnitude or so?
B contains a negative quality - it isn't a "negative" itself, in the sense of negating anything. It's only by arbitrarily assigning something good to be "positive" and something bad to be "negative" that you can make that argument.
That's precisely why standards exist. Why should anyone waste money and time developing multiple browser-specific versions of a site, when a single standards-based site that supports all browsers will work just as well, for far less money?
This is the second time this argument has come up in this thread. It's a great point, but it has nothing to do with the original post. If I had a choice at getting 3 jobs done that worked perfectly on IE and sub-par (to varying degrees) on 3% of the browsers out there, or a single job that worked perfectly in all browsers, I'd take the former. Every time. Standards are a great idea. They should be used. They should be conformed to. But when the use of a standards breaks *98% of running browsers*, you have to make a choice.
I fully agree that MS is screwing the community by ignoring standards. But it's just another example of using their monopoly to crush competition. I'll fight on other ground. I use OSS all the time now. But when it comes down to affecting the way I live and make money, my principles can suck it. I don't care about the movement enough to cut my performance in 3, especially when many of the alternative browsers out there will do just fine.
Then your clients' customers should switch ISPs. If my ISP was blocking porn, and I had an interest in it, then I would switch, or demand that I be allowed to receive whatever I want. Just like porn, though, some people find spam offensive, and want it stopped before it reaches their box. Don't get me wrong - I'd stop using and ISP that blocked pages I'd specifically requested, but mail I *didn't* request is far more offensive in my opinion, and I consider it a bonus feature if it's blocked.
A business relationship is between a business and a customer, and both parties should want to continue it in order for that relationship to continue. If the customer doesn't even care enough to demand that he be allowed to receive your mail, you don't have much of a relationship. If that screws your business model, then perhaps your business model could use some fine-tuning.
He still didn't "get it" though. People didn't hate Jar Jar because he was a half-witted idiot, IMO. C3PO was just as bad in his own way - a constantly pessimistic robot who never did anything to advance the plot but translate for his intelligent counterpart.
People hated Jar Jar because of the way he was allowed to dominate scenes. I don't want pure "comedy" scenes in my adventure movies. It completely breaks the flow. In the first three movies, C3PO's comments were integrated into the action. He never dominated the conversation or the action, as Jar Jar did in the first movie.
Which brings me to why Lucas still doesn't get it. In episode 2, C3PO dominates the screen with "comedy" with his own stupid sub-plot about his head getting replaced with a killer-droid's. It was the one horrific wish-I-weren't-there part of the movie. Especially with lines like "I feel beside myself". While it was much better, C3PO was still the "Jar Jar" of Episode 2.
I've been thinking about it, and I think I'd go too. To be the first on an alien planet...I can't imagine how incredible that would feel.
I noticed this too. It's not even a matter of bad sounds, it's about bad *quality* sound. I've been seriously considering borrowing the Good Microphone from a friend and getting a good sound set in there.
Good quality CD = 5 guys, 1 computer, 1 good recording device, 1 good sound software package.
Good quality game = 50 guys, 50 computers, 50 specialized software packages (at least, probably more than one per user).
Time to make good quality CD (if done right and the musicians know their stuff) : Say a week of recording, full time. And even this is quite long. Add on a week of mixing, full time, for only one guy.
Time to make a good game : Blizzard's team has been working on Warcraft3 for well over a year now.
Doesn't matter if you include the producers, engineers, etc, there's no way you're getting a year of work from 50 guys to create a CD.
...before realizing that's the absolute best way to "cancel" your service. I will remember that if I ever have a similar experience.
You think that's amazing...wait 'til you're at +5 Informative.
...but here's my take.
:
You can talk about "moral repugnance" all you want, but it's not going to affect anyone who wants to do this. The idea that something is "morally" wrong has been used throughout the ages to condemn practices such as homosexuality, and even mathematics. There are some religions that have strong beliefs against blood transfusions, and would rather let their child die than allow a transfusion.
So to take a different angle. Why is this patentable? I mean, the techniques are already there. They've done it with a sheep and a goat. Why is this so incredibly innovative about a humouse that it deserves protection for 20 years? I'd think that the idea would be quite obvious to any expert in the field who had a need of a human/mouse hybrid. While the "moral repugnance" angle works well for getting the attention of Congress, I think that a lot of the patenting of life is just another symptom of the problems with patents in general
(1) They're given out without too much examination/understanding by the patent clerk.
(2) 20 years? A lot of inventions nowadays become obsolete after 10, if not 5 years of production. There should be some mechanism to set the time limit differently for different inventions (eg 2-5 years for software patents).
- ...because when they kiss ass they...
...bit them square in the ass
...lazy asses complaining...
...some a-hole with money to burn.. (interesting censorship considering the rest of the post)
-
-
-
lol (seriously)
It is a well known fact that AMD Duron processors are made in a sweatshop in Maylasia
It's a good thing too! Working in those clean rooms is the only way those poor tots ever get a bath!
See - you lose the Simpsons either way. Either Groening takes your advice and stops the episodes, or you stop watching because it's not fun anymore. You can say it "jumped the shark" all you want, but it's not going to change how it's produced one bit.
I've personally noticed that it's changed, but I don't think that it's for better or for worse. Yes - they've overdone Homer being stupid, as they overdid Bart-the-smartass in seasons one and two. They'll move on to something else when people get bored of this. Hopefully concentrating on the fringe characters a bit more - I mean, the newest one is what? Disco Stu? And he's been around for years now.
There are very few episodes I've watched that weren't worth watching. There have been one or two every season for the past 4 or 5 years that have just been a waste of my time, but there have also been the one or two brilliant ones. In any case, I'm just glad there's still something to watch on Sundays. I think we all know in our heart of hearts that when the Simpsons is gone, it won't be replaced by quality.