Every country in the world, throughout history, was a bunch of commies then. By your reasoning. There has never been a 100% free market, there never will be one. And as economies spread and evolve new regulation is always necessary (to keep up with change and abuse).
A totally free market sounds like hell. I personally don't miss the days of child labor, Pinkertons, and The Jungle.
Right... If you aren't a Tea Partier or a Libertarian your a communist. Good "Us vs. Them" mentality, that mode of thought has lead to nothing but goodness.
I think Communists are as big of niave utopians as the Tea morons and the Libertarian sociopaths. Anyone who is 100% convinces that they are correct, and feel entitled to force their opinions on others are the enemy.
Re:Blizzard is evil, boycott if you have integrity
on
Diablo III Beta Begins
·
· Score: 1
Translation: You don't agree with my version of right and wrong, so nyah!
I will buy it. Yes, I don't agree with some of their policies and mechanics, and if they get annoying I will quit playing. My not agreeing with their policies doesn't make this some sort of holy nerd crusade, though. They aren't infringing on my "rights", and even if they were (they aren't), my buying the game doesn't personally force you to buy it.
Nor does having a handful of self-righteous nerds actually make a difference. The writing is already on the wall, and has been long before SCII or DIII, or Blizzard. Games will be wholly online. This is pretty much a fact. You depriving yourself of amusement won't change it, so why bother? I, personally, hate the idea of everything being online, but that is just my subjective opinion. But, in the end, its one silly little policy that won't actually harm my enjoyment at all. Sure, Blizz may go out of business someday (not likely soon), and I may be deprived of my Diablo 3 action. This would matter to me if we were talking about an expensive investment, and not a cheap, insignificant, game. Sure, it sucks, but it doesn't matter.
This leads me to my last point: if you can get really mad about a game, then you must not have much to get mad about. Really, this is worth all your nerdrage? Why not invest the energy in protesting and bitching about something that actually matters?
The game will come out, you will probably buy it eventually, you will enjoy it, and in three years no one will care one bit about this faux controversy, nor even probably remember it.
I'm not disagreeing with your point. I actually agree 100%. That said:
WTF is a "Natural Right"? In nature, as far as I can tell, you have the right to attempt to survive, and that's about it. Beyond that, I can't see it. There are not natural rights, only social constructions that we mostly agree with as a culture. I have never heard a convincing argument for the a priori existence of rights of any type, and I went to school for that kind of stuff. Please explain what a "natural right" is, how it is derived, and "freedom of religion" fits into this.
Not to sound like a philosophical pedant, but proclaiming something as a right doesn't have that much force really, and we bandy the term around so much that what force it could have has pretty much completely evaporated.
I'm not talking about hardware, or software, multitasking. I'm talking about actual multitasking, having multiple workflows and windows operating at once. A lot of DE makers are trying to force people from the traditional way of doing work, to one that's more tablet like (single window).
Re:I just answered that.
on
Windows 8 Roundup
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Resisting change, did you even test it or try to see the good and bad points? You know, get a balanced view...
I've got a high UID, so I'm not crusty in my ways: I know what works for me, I've been working on my computer for 25 years, so I damn well know how I work. I know that EVERY single other PC OS or DE has window overlap as a default behavior for a damn good reason. I'm not sure what was broken about it. I'm not even convinced its easier for "normal" users, both my Mom and Dad have no problem with windows overlapping, and neither of them are at all close to being expert.
Earlier today, using my computer for fun, I had over 6 windows open. I had a torrent client open, and squeezed down so I could just see the progress bar, I had iTunes open, I had Steam open, I had both a Firefox and two Chrome windows open, I had three explorer windows open as well. This is normal use. I'm sure Microsoft knows what best though, obviously I meant to buy a tablet and not a desktop. Yes, I have the option of not using a gimped interface, but why should I jump through hoops? When I'm actually working this will be infuriating, I don't need extra steps, I don't need Microsoft telling me how to do things, I just want to forget all about my OS and focus on the task at hand. Sometimes that task requires tons of extra windows arranged in such a way that suits my work flow, which might not be a way that MS approves of. I'm imagining this in a corporate environment, where using multiple windows is the norm, as is users of all abilities and experience levels.
Hell, I don't understand why I can't have a start menu. Whats wrong with being able to quickly access another program without losing focus on whatever task your doing? I don't understand why a tablet interface makes any sense on a desktop, either. I have a large monitor, plenty of real estate, so I don't need to focus on one thing at a time. A tablet is a toy, I use a real computer. If I wanted the tablet experience, I'd be using a damn tablet. I have nothing against tablets, or OSs on tablets, but they don't work for me.
I've noticed that the trend in OS design of late is to try to kill the idea of multi-tasking, and try to force the user to focus at single tasks. This is all well and fine, but it doesn't match many peoples actual work flows. Sure, I'm doing one task, but this generally leads to needing to have multiple other things working at the same time. I'm editing a file, thats my single task. For this I need an email program open to see what the customer/boss wants, I might need a chat window or Skype to actually communicate, I need a PDF viewer or browser to see documentation, I need some music to keep me sane, I need a text editor to scribble notes and documentation, I need multiple file browsers to keep track of other files and documents, etc... Rarely can I do my job with a single, or a few, windows.
But marketing departments decided that ALL computers should now be toys made for mere media consumption, and not tools.
I don't need to test it, just watching the videos and reading the reviews tell me that I get to skip a version of Windows.
I actually LIKE KDE4, sure it sucked for a couple years, and 5 or so point releases, but it isn't that bad, especially if you put the work into making it fit your style. Xfce isn't bad, either. It isn't too my tastes, but I can see myself running it. Sadly Windows7 is actually good, though. Really good. Even if I didn't still try gaming from time to time, I'd have a hard time yanking it off my primary computer. But if any Linux distro excelled at being a media center, I'd rip Win7 off my HTPC in a second.
Sure, I'm not dancing in the street about KDE 4.7. But the only reason I was excited about Win7 is because it was like the second coming in comparison to its predication, Vista. KDE 4.7 is just a gradual maturation from a DE that sucked a bit worse than Vista (Vista wasn't as bad as people wanted it to be, either), where Win7 was actually a bit shocking.
Win8 might work well on my HTPC, if it runs lighter than 7. I don't mind it being dumbed down, since I don't actually do any work on it, and its accesable to non-techy friends. But it is never touching my actual main PC. Not unless they they realize that I don't own a giant tablet, nor would I get one (the various "touch" PCs I've used have sucked, it works great on a 10" screen, but chokes on a 25" monitor, much less 2 of them).
I have no problem working with KDE, or Gnome2. The only issue I have is a dearth of decent software, and that's hardly the DEs fault.
Windows 7 itself, on the other hand, is akin to Bob in usability. It's as if the programmers got together and said, "How can we make it more difficult for people to find what they need? How can we hide every usable function and feature by burying it in the most obscure and non-logical place? How many ways can we change what we've done for the last two decades so that people have to relearn everything?"
Hmm... Windows 7 is basically a non-broken Vista with a dock. Vista was a slightly more glossy (and broken) version of XP. If you have a hard time adapting to 7 then there is a serious problem, or you haven't used windows since... well... Win95. Windows has never been known for its ease of finding settings, Windows 7 is no better, or worse, than any previous version. But I don't care, a modern OS is a terribly complicated beast, so you're always going to have some wonkey bits, and some inconsistency. What did you have to relearn in Win7?
Win 8, on the other hand, is Microsoft's Gnome Shell or Unity. A dumbed down tablet interface shoved onto desktops, and hoping to succeed because "tablets are cool".
This decade will be remembered as the decade when the desktop OS died. Not because its obsolete, but because marketing departments decided it was. For some reason people forgot that people need to do WORK on their computers, and not just look at beautiful widgets with slidey effects. I need to find programs efficiently and quickly, be able to sort and find data and files, and be able to juggle many windows with the least possible effort. I want to be able to access OS setting quickly, as I need them (which should be rarely). And I need my OS to get the fuck out of my way when I'm working on projects. Hell, it should as ignorance as humanly possible, even when I'm doing banal tasks like reading/.. I don't care how sexy it looks, I'm not using my computer as a fashion accessory, I'm using it as a tool. After you hammer out the important bits, then worry about aesthetics and style.
Right now Win8 looks like a golden hammer. It sure it pretty, but wait until you try to nail something.
So.. I'm an ISP, thus I should have the right to remove anything from the internet that may criticize me, offend me, or goes against my agenda? ( I know there is a difference, but the way you phrased your reply makes it look like this would be acceptable.)
Sure, this might be in Apple's rights, but just because you have the right doesn't mean you should use it. I know this lesson had been completely lost on modern America. I have the right to free speech, does this mean I'm any less an asshole for following you calling you nasty names constantly? Apple should have just ignored them, or, if they were really feeling like not being the typical amoral (sociopathic) faceless corporation; make a statement and genuinely try to clean things up, or address the situation.
I'm sick of both ignoring the "responsibility" side of the term "rights", and giving a pass to giant corporations somehow being held as "individiauls" but somehow lacking all of the standards (and, oh dear, responsibilities) we hold ourselves to.
. The problem with Linux, from an average user perspective, is not the filesystem layout itself, but that we are often forced to navigate it in search of some obscure config files and plugin folders. This is improving steadily, if not rapidly.
I suppose this is the root (har har) of my point. I still have to go poke around finding various config files, where in Windows, or OS X, I pretty much can let the system handle itself outside of rare extreme emergencies.
Isn't it fully compatible with Debian repositories, like Mint is with Ubuntu's?
It is, but both vanilla Mint and Ubuntu though in very nice tweaks to make it play nicer, and trying to hunt them all down (some of which aren't hiding in Debian repos) is a pain. OpenSuse (the best KDE distro, barring the Tumbleweed issue I had) fully integrates gtk into KDE, providing a seamless experience, but trying to recreate this is a bit of a pain. The KDE packages you get straight from the Debian repos is 100% stock, so isn't quite as usable as I'm used to. Also KDE's blessing is its curse, its so damn customizable as to be infuriating at times, especially when you're trying to get it to fit your accustomed work flow. I can use stock Gnome without wanting to pull my hair out, but KDE needs a ton of work (once you get it, it works better, for me at least). Also it still uses a fair amount of gtk GUI tools, so you have to hunt down the proper qt versions. I suppose its more like trying to get 10 Legos to fit a specific shape, in the dark, when your not sure of what Legos are in the box, or if the bit you need was ever sold in stores..
I've been meaning to try both LXDE and, especially Enlightenment. I've heard about the latter for years and years without ever trying it myself. Perhaps I'll go on a DE safari this week, and see how many I can try out. Perhaps one will blow both Gnome and KDE out of the water.
Your complaints about the file system, though, were odd.
The/home versus everything else bit makes a ton of sense. But when it breaks down further to/var,/etc,/xyz it gets more opaque. It all makes sense from a purely practical view, but for people without years of Unix-like experience it seems rather odd and arbitrary.
Regarding your distro hunting, if you liked Ubuntu, try Mint.
Right now I'm trying KDE shoehorned onto the Xfce version of Mint Debian (quickly, come out with KDE Debian!), so far I'm liking it, though KDE isn't nearly as polished as in the Opensuse, Ubuntu, or vanilla Mint versions (obviously). Why KDE? I'm scared of when I'm forced to use Gnome Shell, and I personally don't like Xfce (its nice and light, but perhaps a bit too sparse. I loved OpenSuse, but also loved the idea of a rolling release, but Tumbleweed choked, and eventually decided to cease letting me update files, also apt is one of the sexiest things in the world. So far I'm happy with the experience, but I'd much prefer a native KDE version, I'm having a hard time remembering what features make it generally pleasant in other versions.
. Despite all that and people constantly saying dumb things that aren't true like "linux is for geeks" or "linux is hard" or "linux is for technical people" when in reality it depends on the version.
Its gotten better, but those phrases still, sadly, stand. Perhaps I'm bitter because I'm once again fishing for a decent distro (anyone have anything to say about Aptosid?), but Linux still isn't as easy to use as OS X or Windows. Sure, its more versatile and powerful, but that is something that only matters to geeks and technical people.Yes, the days of spending hours hand writing config files has passed (though not completely, no distro will support sound over HDMI on an Ion chip without messing with ALSA), but it still isn't as easy to use, it still breaks for somewhat arbitrary reasons, and Linux coders still can't make a GUI to save their lives.
When both Gnome and Ubuntu jumped the shark, ruining my years of Distro stability, I had to go fishing for a decent distro. None of them were very friendly, half of the ones I tried wouldn't recognize my 8 year old wifi chip. All them them were very, very, different, with different ways of doing things. Most of them have incomprehensible config GUIs.
Hell, there isn't even decent media software. When I was trying to make a Linux based HTPC, I couldn't find anything simple enough to use as a "roll your own" jukebox at a party, where people of all levels of computer skill could access music, and create playlists (ala iTunes party shuffle). I couldn't even find anything that was stable with a very large library (50Gb+). I spend around a whole weekend just trying various media players, to see if anything would even come close to my needs. None did. Well, Songbird was close, but they discontinued Linux support, and it still liked to crash or go unresponsive. What software there is, that a normal person would want, all looks terrible, and is often wrapped in an impenetrable mess of a GUI (with no consistency, even).
Hell, even the core isn't quite there. The Linux filesystem, for all its functional and logical glory, sucks for the average user. The fact that I still need to use the command prompt daily doesn't help either (I personally don't mind, buy my parents would). When something breaks in Linux, it breaks, when something breaks in modern iterations of Windows, there is generally a quick fix, and it generally is 100% the fault of the user.
I can attest to this, since I'm not a technical user. I'm a geek, sure, but I'm pretty much trying to teach myself Linux as I go. I'm not an expert user. I'm also not the average joe, since I've been attached to a key board for 28 years, and have probably tried around 300 distros over the years, waiting for Linux to be mature enough to be my daily OS. I love Linux, I use daily now. But it still isn't at the point where I'd recommend it to a complete novice. Ubuntu was making me hopeful that that point would be coming soon, but lately I have my doubts (Unity, wtf?). Hell, the easiest to use GUI (Gnome) decided to kill themselves as well. Its as if the community decided that they might be able to stand on their own (desktop wise), and got scared.
Though, I suppose, I respect the idea behind Unity and Gnome Shell, Linux should try to just be a Windows/OS X clone, and should try being competent on its own merits, in its own way. If I wanted OS X or Windows, I'd be running them. Sadly both implications failed completely. And going for "simpler than OS X" is probably a mistake, since Linux' strength sure as hell isn't its simplicity.
I personally think people pick their favorite "school" based on their pre-existing views and agendas, and not on any actual merits of their philosophies.
Also, the way you put it sort of hurts the Austrians, at least in my eyes. Theory is useless without observations. Where observations are somewhat useful with the judicious use of statistics and large data sets.
Personally I think both of them are completely useless. Both of them, applied, have caused a decent amount of harm. Neither of them, applied, have seemed to do the slightest bit of good. And generally people who vocally subscribe, and show brand loyalty, to any of them are as idiotic as people who declare themselves as following one of the the two established political agendas. Its just as arbitrary. Reading debates about which of the various schools of economics is gospel leads to the conclusion that economics has more in common with religion than with science. There is no way to conclusively falsify any claim, and thus the argument never, ever, can have an actual objective conclusion.
Shrinking government spending (while deregulating private activity) caused a boom in China.
A) I don't think China's version of deregulating has quite the meaning you want...
B) Would you like to be a worker bee in China? I sure as hell wouldn't, nor would most people, thus it is a horrible example.
C) Germany is very different than the U.S. For one they rely less on publicly traded companies. They also actually MAKE stuff, and then export it. Also, from what I read, a lot of German CEOs actually strive to be ethical, and responsible. Furthermore, Germany is currently "stimulating" a large chunk of Europe.
D) "Too involved"? Compared to who? You'll find that most of the countries in this world, that are doing well, have very involved Governments, most of which have a socialist bent. Libertarian utopias, on the other hand, are few and far between.
E) Wait, removing the Government from companies is the key... and you cite China? Huh.
How did Google Plus fail? Sure, the hype died off, so the numbers dropped. But last I checked (quickly clicks a link); the community is still doing fine.
Actually, when I was in Las Vegas over last weekend I posted a few things (with the location enabled), and managed to quickly grab around 2-4 followers a post, some of whom are actually rather interesting people. The same post (well, a link to the Google post, since Facebook has a completely arbitrary character limit, forcing conversations along the most inane and content free of lines) on Facebook got me absolutely nothing but a few "lol"s and a few useless likes.
Hell, I've managed to get in conversations with strangers over the merits of IKEA, by flippantly posting something to Google.
Sure, everyday I get twice as many nuggets of insight on my Facebook account as I do on my Google, but then again I only follow half as many people as well (since a lot of my friends are inexplicably loyal to Facebook).
For an invitation only Beta that isn't feature complete yet, I'd say Google Plus is doing just fine.
Also, Yelp is getting to be less than worthless. I was looking for reviews of a local crepe restaurant, and one of the top reviews was highly negative because the reviewer didn't like crepes. Not didn't like this restaurant's, but didn't like them at all. One of my favorite restaurants has been down voted only because it isn't owned by the same guy, even while the review admits the food is unchanged. I pretty much completely ignore Yelp now.
Not that Zagat is at all relevant anymore either. Perhaps their going to plug it into the reviews that come up in Maps, those are generally worse than Yelps, even.
Or look at Ron Paul this year. He got 2nd place in the Iowa Straw Poll, less than a percentage point behind Bachmann. Still, the media refuses to talk about him as if he were a serious candidate. It's obvious that what the people want simply doesn't matter
This does annoy me. In the last primary Dennis Kucinich was my favorite (Holy Cow, the last remaining liberal!), and even though he had zero chance of being elected, the media still either ignored him, or basically made him a laughing stock for things not at all related to politics ("zomg, he saw a UFO!"). Or Howard Dean, who basically got kicked out because of a single out of context clip of him being enthusiastic at a rally (which everyone does), a clip that the media decided was more important than anything else in the universe, and played ad naseum sans all context. This election, I already know who is going to win the Republican primary (Rick Perry), based wholly on media enthusiasm. He is the favorite of the media, thus will get more exposure, and thus will win the primary (at least). Unless, of course, he does something to loose favor with the media or their boards of directors.
But... the fact that people vote for who the media (or anyone) wants them to vote for is a deeper problem. I'm fully aware I'm using the term "the media" in a sense that could be confused for a conspiracy. I don't mean it this way. I largely mean it in the context of annoying 24 hour cable news networks, where gaining ratings, holding viewers, and maintaining a brand image are more important than actual social utility. Our politicians are chosen by their potential for spectacle, over their actual useful attributes. This is fine, the market wants this, so... The sad thing is that we take them seriously.
Why? We lack the desire, or will, to educate ourselves. Beyond that, we lack the basics of education that allow a vast majority of us to be able to freely, and independently, evaluate claims. Basic critical thinking skills. This is one thing that annoys me about the current state of the political right. The country will never get better unless voters get better, and voters will never get better without cheap, ubiquitous, education. Democracy depends on "informed voters", not just voters. Voters who are willing, at times, to not get their way for the good of the country as a whole. Voters who realize that America means more than them getting their petty wishes. We might also realize that ignorance (ala Bachmann and Palin) is not a desirable characteristic for those in power, even if we like the sound of their baseless mumbling.
We should also realize that our current state of moronic, petty, partisan bickering is not, NOT, desirable, or entertaining. It almost completely killed our (already ill) economy. And there was a contingent cheering it on, which made me sick.
Obviously there is more to this than just education. Power is also stacked against us (the people). Power is money, and money is the ability to get your message across. This leaves a vast majority of us silent and invisible. What are my desires and wishes against multi-billion dollar corporations?
All of this is inevitable. Especially based on the American form of capitalism, and the unique aspects of our character. I'm not attacking capitalism, mind. I'm just saying that we have needed, for a long time, checks to keep it from gobbling up our ability to control our government. Basically a way to limit the ways for money to translate in to political capital. Oddly, we're working in the opposite direction now.
I do think if someone like Ron Paul won a clear majority (which would require voters to evaluate him on their terms and not just take what the media feeds them), he would be president. I don't think our system is that broken, yet. If only for the (tin foil hat time) reason that the system is already shored up from below, so no one saw, or prepared for that eventuality. Once in office he might be slagged constantly, though.
I've been pondering a "citizens pac", or lobby group for a long time. Us little folk really need to organize on the same scale as corporate interests.
Judging from 99% of of people I've heard bandying about the term "revolution", I'd probably be on the street fighting against you, an in favor of our absolutely corrupt, somewhat evil, ELECTED, representative government. You might be a different type of revolutionary than most, for all I know, so don't take it personally.
Most of the would-be revolutionaries I've mean, read about, etc... fall into two camps. Lunatics or Authoritarians who are mad that things aren't they way they perceive as the singular, a priori, truth. Most of the lunatics are white-supremacy types, and i sure as well would fight to keep them from recieving any small modicum of control. The latter bit are mostly (these days) Libertarian Utopians, and Tea partiers, and both of their versions of Utopia sound more like hell to me (and probably around 50% of everyone else). In the 60's 70's, this also included the far-left lunatic fringe, but they've all pretty much died off now. I say authoritarian, for these two groups, since they have their panties in a twist because voters voted for people who don't agree with their personal philosophy (as such) of governance. So it would be okay to force their views on people, but not for others to do the same to them. Worse, they (and the lunatics) hold ideals above the real world, and real people, and are will to make people suffer for mere subjective ideas. They, in other words, know better.
Nothing good has ever come from people who claim to "know better", who subsequently force their will on others. Right now, in America, to be a "revolutionary", is actually just wanting to be a tyrant.
No, we are not perfect. Yes, there are tons of things I would change. Yes, we're probably at the brink of decline. Yes, we have TONS of things to be ashamed of. But... All of our faults fall onto the people. Sure, politicians are the people who do the actions, but we voted them in, watch as they do evil, and then, this is the important bit, vote them in again. We, the people, willfully refuse to acknowledge third parties or affiliated candidates. We the people listen to the media uncritically, and always vote for whoever spent the most money on advertising. We the people hate the educated ("damn elitists"), we hate intellectuals (to the point of making it an inexplicable slander), we want to vote for "normal" people who are as moronic, myopic, and uneducated, as us. Hell, we would NEVER even vote for a person who doesn't look good on T.V., they have to look like they escaped from a daytime soap opera.
We have the government we deserve. If you don't like it, become an activist. If it really looks like a tyranny (which would be ironic, since we're talking of revolution without the fear of ours doors being kicked in, or disappearing in the night), then pick up arms. But only if all other non-violent options have been exhausted. And after you evaluate WHY yu want to rain misery down on the innocent, non-caring, civilians of our country... is it because your not getting your way, or because we're living in a genuine (thing chunks of Africa) tyranny.
...the problem is that when they copy too much that a customer can't honestly tell the difference between two products. That is where Apple has a case, and Samsung doesn't.
I can tell the difference. One is a slightly more square black rectangle, and the other is a slightly more elongated rectangle that says, in visible letters, "Samsung". If consumers are that dumb... I don't think the patent would help.
The icon thing is more valid, except for the fact that EVERYTHING HAS ICONS, and most of them are aligned in a grid. Right now both my KDE and Win7 descktops are infringing on Apple's IP. My Desktop is even displaying this "grid of icons" on a large black rectangle with rounded corners. Actual my Droid X, from straight on, is a black rectangle with a grid of icons. EVERY smart phone is a black rectangle with icons that can be in a grid. Almost every bit of technology is a rectangle with rounded corners with icons that may or may not be in a grid. Going to Fry's Electronics yesterday, every single tablet on display was a black rectangle with rounded corners.
Having a patent on such superfluous things as a basic shape, and a basic (and ubiquitous) way of arranging icons, is akin to me having a patent on "a rectangular object supported by 2 or more legs, on which objects such as a computer, may be arraigned"
On the bright side Samsung and Motorola have REAL patents, such as things that actually are necessary for the operation of phones. So when Apple says "we own basic geometry", Motorola can quip back "Good luck using that without basic phone functionality". All of this would have been avoided if Apple played nicely, but they decided that they are above the usual "tit for a tat" way of doing business ("we have some patents, you have some patents, you can use ours if we can use yours, saving millions on lawsuits!"). This is a nice way of telling Apple that they aren't special, they aren't actually that innovative (technologically), nor are they at all important within the market. People can't live without Apple, but they can't without the actual nuts-and-bolts.
...while its proper name, given by Native Americans, is Weemoteeuktuk.
Proper to whom? Which group of Native Americans, there are tons of them up there. The Navajo, the Ute, the Hopi, the Paiute, the Havasupai, the Hualapai? I'm sure I'm missing some tribes.
I wasn't aware that names weren't allowed to change. The first name something is given, is its name forever. I'm sure this is going to make me loose some "cultural feel good woo" points, but I'm past the point of caring. A name is a name, it isn't a magical identifier. The proper name for the Grand Canyon, in English, is "The Grand Canyon". Why is this proper? Because if I mention it to another English speaker they will know what the hell I'm talking about. If I say "Weemoteeuktuk", no one (even most natives) won't have a damn clue. If, in whatever language, "Weemoteeuktuk" is meaningful, and common, then that is the proper name within the smaller community, though they too will recognize what I'm referring to what I say "The Grand Canyon", making the term much more useful and ubiquitous. And thus superior, and this closer to "proper".
No, I don't think some mythical sense of inclusion is more important than clarity and the ability to communicate. The latter are the point of language, the former is for the the sociologists and odd Caucasian apologists.
Now there is a complaint I don't think I've heard, much less with so much reiteration.
I haven't had a docking station for anything I own since I bought some old HP digital camera. I didn't think people used them anymore, for much of anything. It would be basically a large, expensive, block of plastic with a USB cord poking through it. Most people used stands, it seems, or at least looking at the large consumer frenzy surrounding the iPad. I'm pretty sure any stand for the iPad would work for the Nook Color, as well.
You are correct. I found out how to overclock my 300mhz CPU to 325Mhz by submerging it in a Wesson's Oil bath, circulated and cooled by a salvaged window air conditioning unit. Ah../., I strangely love you.
Compared to a decade ago, the front page looks more like a yellow tabloid than a serious tech site. Slashvertisements, titles and summaries chosen for shock value rather than informative content, clueless submitters, incompetent editors.
But a decade ago every other story was a case mod story, and the rest were dupes of previous case mod stories. As long as I've been reading/., people have always complained about how it is going down hill. Yet somehow it has never actually died (unlike every other site founded around the same time... ahem K5). Slashdot is undead, and has always been undead.
Of all the things I was doing a decade ago, reading/. daily is the only thing that survived. I have no clue what I'd do with the time I could reclaim by quitting/. Probably make myself into something impressive, rich, and important.
You have some very valid points, and I pretty much agree with you.
As I stated, there should be room for anonymity, or at least pseudo-anonymity. But no service provider should be forced to not require real names either. That is why I don't see the point of the Google+ nerd-rage, if being anonymous is personally required, or desired, then don't use the service. Or just use a convincing real-sounding fake name.
The most amusing bit of Google+ rage I've heard was from someone who uses their real name on Facebook, and have a somewhat successful blog under their real name, rage-quitting Google+ because they couldn't use a pseudonym. That and a lot of the people publicisizing this issue are listed as "internet celebrities" or "personalities", whose real name are publicly available. To them, the seeds of this debate, it is more about not being allowed to use their brand name than being forced to use their real name.
A bigger problem is the societal one, that some of us feel the (legitimate, in your case) need to hide our views lest we be judged. The fact that somehow our private lives have become linked to our professionalism ones, with the professional one basically destroying our ability to have a decent private life. You being a vocal atheist (or whatnot) should really have no bearing on your merits as a teacher. They are not really linked, but somehow we decided that they are. Sure, there are things that should be held against people (teachers liking kiddie-porn, for instance, or heavy substance abuse, or such), but basic views and political leanings shouldn't play a role. You should be solely judged on your merits within your profession. Teaching high school physics (or whatnot) has nothing to do with you being a Buddhist Republican who likes Jello, or a Satanist Libertarian who likes puppies, or an atheistic, socialist who voted for Kodos.
But what is wrong with pseudo-anonyminity, with aliases as is already common practice 'Omestes?' They provide a reputation, but with the ability to hold personal, family and professional lives in strict isolation, and giving people the chance to reinvent themselves as they mature without being haunted by the immaturity of their youth.
Again, nothing against it. Even if I'm slowly moving towards using my actual identity in some domains (mainly since either my credibility is held to a higher necessary standard, or for legal standing), I'm not about to ditch my Slashdot (and many other online services) handle. I'm not sure being "Omestes" is necessary anymore, but I like it, and have gone by it since some point in the mid 90's. It isn't really an alternative identity anymore, I wouldn't say anything under this alias, that I wouldn't say to you in real life, as myself. I probably keep it mostly for habit, nostalgia, and the fact that in some circles it carries some modicum of credibility. One thing though, it is VERY, VERY hard to start using my real name, even in limited domains. It goes against all of the rules I learned during my formative online (and BBS) years. Adding my real name to my camera's meta-data took weeks of deliberation and stress. I wish I joking.
Slashdot Mirror
Every country in the world, throughout history, was a bunch of commies then. By your reasoning. There has never been a 100% free market, there never will be one. And as economies spread and evolve new regulation is always necessary (to keep up with change and abuse).
A totally free market sounds like hell. I personally don't miss the days of child labor, Pinkertons, and The Jungle.
Right... If you aren't a Tea Partier or a Libertarian your a communist. Good "Us vs. Them" mentality, that mode of thought has lead to nothing but goodness.
I think Communists are as big of niave utopians as the Tea morons and the Libertarian sociopaths. Anyone who is 100% convinces that they are correct, and feel entitled to force their opinions on others are the enemy.
Translation: You don't agree with my version of right and wrong, so nyah!
I will buy it. Yes, I don't agree with some of their policies and mechanics, and if they get annoying I will quit playing. My not agreeing with their policies doesn't make this some sort of holy nerd crusade, though. They aren't infringing on my "rights", and even if they were (they aren't), my buying the game doesn't personally force you to buy it.
Nor does having a handful of self-righteous nerds actually make a difference. The writing is already on the wall, and has been long before SCII or DIII, or Blizzard. Games will be wholly online. This is pretty much a fact. You depriving yourself of amusement won't change it, so why bother? I, personally, hate the idea of everything being online, but that is just my subjective opinion. But, in the end, its one silly little policy that won't actually harm my enjoyment at all. Sure, Blizz may go out of business someday (not likely soon), and I may be deprived of my Diablo 3 action. This would matter to me if we were talking about an expensive investment, and not a cheap, insignificant, game. Sure, it sucks, but it doesn't matter.
This leads me to my last point: if you can get really mad about a game, then you must not have much to get mad about. Really, this is worth all your nerdrage? Why not invest the energy in protesting and bitching about something that actually matters?
The game will come out, you will probably buy it eventually, you will enjoy it, and in three years no one will care one bit about this faux controversy, nor even probably remember it.
So it is a NATURAL RIGHT...
I'm not disagreeing with your point. I actually agree 100%. That said:
WTF is a "Natural Right"? In nature, as far as I can tell, you have the right to attempt to survive, and that's about it. Beyond that, I can't see it. There are not natural rights, only social constructions that we mostly agree with as a culture. I have never heard a convincing argument for the a priori existence of rights of any type, and I went to school for that kind of stuff. Please explain what a "natural right" is, how it is derived, and "freedom of religion" fits into this.
Not to sound like a philosophical pedant, but proclaiming something as a right doesn't have that much force really, and we bandy the term around so much that what force it could have has pretty much completely evaporated.
I'm not talking about hardware, or software, multitasking. I'm talking about actual multitasking, having multiple workflows and windows operating at once. A lot of DE makers are trying to force people from the traditional way of doing work, to one that's more tablet like (single window).
Resisting change, did you even test it or try to see the good and bad points? You know, get a balanced view ...
I've got a high UID, so I'm not crusty in my ways: I know what works for me, I've been working on my computer for 25 years, so I damn well know how I work. I know that EVERY single other PC OS or DE has window overlap as a default behavior for a damn good reason. I'm not sure what was broken about it. I'm not even convinced its easier for "normal" users, both my Mom and Dad have no problem with windows overlapping, and neither of them are at all close to being expert.
Earlier today, using my computer for fun, I had over 6 windows open. I had a torrent client open, and squeezed down so I could just see the progress bar, I had iTunes open, I had Steam open, I had both a Firefox and two Chrome windows open, I had three explorer windows open as well. This is normal use. I'm sure Microsoft knows what best though, obviously I meant to buy a tablet and not a desktop. Yes, I have the option of not using a gimped interface, but why should I jump through hoops? When I'm actually working this will be infuriating, I don't need extra steps, I don't need Microsoft telling me how to do things, I just want to forget all about my OS and focus on the task at hand. Sometimes that task requires tons of extra windows arranged in such a way that suits my work flow, which might not be a way that MS approves of. I'm imagining this in a corporate environment, where using multiple windows is the norm, as is users of all abilities and experience levels.
Hell, I don't understand why I can't have a start menu. Whats wrong with being able to quickly access another program without losing focus on whatever task your doing? I don't understand why a tablet interface makes any sense on a desktop, either. I have a large monitor, plenty of real estate, so I don't need to focus on one thing at a time. A tablet is a toy, I use a real computer. If I wanted the tablet experience, I'd be using a damn tablet. I have nothing against tablets, or OSs on tablets, but they don't work for me.
I've noticed that the trend in OS design of late is to try to kill the idea of multi-tasking, and try to force the user to focus at single tasks. This is all well and fine, but it doesn't match many peoples actual work flows. Sure, I'm doing one task, but this generally leads to needing to have multiple other things working at the same time. I'm editing a file, thats my single task. For this I need an email program open to see what the customer/boss wants, I might need a chat window or Skype to actually communicate, I need a PDF viewer or browser to see documentation, I need some music to keep me sane, I need a text editor to scribble notes and documentation, I need multiple file browsers to keep track of other files and documents, etc... Rarely can I do my job with a single, or a few, windows.
But marketing departments decided that ALL computers should now be toys made for mere media consumption, and not tools.
I don't need to test it, just watching the videos and reading the reviews tell me that I get to skip a version of Windows.
If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
I actually LIKE KDE4, sure it sucked for a couple years, and 5 or so point releases, but it isn't that bad, especially if you put the work into making it fit your style. Xfce isn't bad, either. It isn't too my tastes, but I can see myself running it. Sadly Windows7 is actually good, though. Really good. Even if I didn't still try gaming from time to time, I'd have a hard time yanking it off my primary computer. But if any Linux distro excelled at being a media center, I'd rip Win7 off my HTPC in a second.
Sure, I'm not dancing in the street about KDE 4.7. But the only reason I was excited about Win7 is because it was like the second coming in comparison to its predication, Vista. KDE 4.7 is just a gradual maturation from a DE that sucked a bit worse than Vista (Vista wasn't as bad as people wanted it to be, either), where Win7 was actually a bit shocking.
Win8 might work well on my HTPC, if it runs lighter than 7. I don't mind it being dumbed down, since I don't actually do any work on it, and its accesable to non-techy friends. But it is never touching my actual main PC. Not unless they they realize that I don't own a giant tablet, nor would I get one (the various "touch" PCs I've used have sucked, it works great on a 10" screen, but chokes on a 25" monitor, much less 2 of them).
I have no problem working with KDE, or Gnome2. The only issue I have is a dearth of decent software, and that's hardly the DEs fault.
Windows 7 itself, on the other hand, is akin to Bob in usability. It's as if the programmers got together and said, "How can we make it more difficult for people to find what they need? How can we hide every usable function and feature by burying it in the most obscure and non-logical place? How many ways can we change what we've done for the last two decades so that people have to relearn everything?"
Hmm... Windows 7 is basically a non-broken Vista with a dock. Vista was a slightly more glossy (and broken) version of XP. If you have a hard time adapting to 7 then there is a serious problem, or you haven't used windows since... well... Win95. Windows has never been known for its ease of finding settings, Windows 7 is no better, or worse, than any previous version. But I don't care, a modern OS is a terribly complicated beast, so you're always going to have some wonkey bits, and some inconsistency. What did you have to relearn in Win7?
Win 8, on the other hand, is Microsoft's Gnome Shell or Unity. A dumbed down tablet interface shoved onto desktops, and hoping to succeed because "tablets are cool".
This decade will be remembered as the decade when the desktop OS died. Not because its obsolete, but because marketing departments decided it was. For some reason people forgot that people need to do WORK on their computers, and not just look at beautiful widgets with slidey effects. I need to find programs efficiently and quickly, be able to sort and find data and files, and be able to juggle many windows with the least possible effort. I want to be able to access OS setting quickly, as I need them (which should be rarely). And I need my OS to get the fuck out of my way when I'm working on projects. Hell, it should as ignorance as humanly possible, even when I'm doing banal tasks like reading /.. I don't care how sexy it looks, I'm not using my computer as a fashion accessory, I'm using it as a tool. After you hammer out the important bits, then worry about aesthetics and style.
Right now Win8 looks like a golden hammer. It sure it pretty, but wait until you try to nail something.
So.. I'm an ISP, thus I should have the right to remove anything from the internet that may criticize me, offend me, or goes against my agenda? ( I know there is a difference, but the way you phrased your reply makes it look like this would be acceptable.)
Sure, this might be in Apple's rights, but just because you have the right doesn't mean you should use it. I know this lesson had been completely lost on modern America. I have the right to free speech, does this mean I'm any less an asshole for following you calling you nasty names constantly? Apple should have just ignored them, or, if they were really feeling like not being the typical amoral (sociopathic) faceless corporation; make a statement and genuinely try to clean things up, or address the situation.
I'm sick of both ignoring the "responsibility" side of the term "rights", and giving a pass to giant corporations somehow being held as "individiauls" but somehow lacking all of the standards (and, oh dear, responsibilities) we hold ourselves to.
. The problem with Linux, from an average user perspective, is not the filesystem layout itself, but that we are often forced to navigate it in search of some obscure config files and plugin folders. This is improving steadily, if not rapidly.
I suppose this is the root (har har) of my point. I still have to go poke around finding various config files, where in Windows, or OS X, I pretty much can let the system handle itself outside of rare extreme emergencies.
Isn't it fully compatible with Debian repositories, like Mint is with Ubuntu's?
It is, but both vanilla Mint and Ubuntu though in very nice tweaks to make it play nicer, and trying to hunt them all down (some of which aren't hiding in Debian repos) is a pain. OpenSuse (the best KDE distro, barring the Tumbleweed issue I had) fully integrates gtk into KDE, providing a seamless experience, but trying to recreate this is a bit of a pain. The KDE packages you get straight from the Debian repos is 100% stock, so isn't quite as usable as I'm used to. Also KDE's blessing is its curse, its so damn customizable as to be infuriating at times, especially when you're trying to get it to fit your accustomed work flow. I can use stock Gnome without wanting to pull my hair out, but KDE needs a ton of work (once you get it, it works better, for me at least). Also it still uses a fair amount of gtk GUI tools, so you have to hunt down the proper qt versions. I suppose its more like trying to get 10 Legos to fit a specific shape, in the dark, when your not sure of what Legos are in the box, or if the bit you need was ever sold in stores..
I've been meaning to try both LXDE and, especially Enlightenment. I've heard about the latter for years and years without ever trying it myself. Perhaps I'll go on a DE safari this week, and see how many I can try out. Perhaps one will blow both Gnome and KDE out of the water.
Your complaints about the file system, though, were odd.
The /home versus everything else bit makes a ton of sense. But when it breaks down further to /var, /etc, /xyz it gets more opaque. It all makes sense from a purely practical view, but for people without years of Unix-like experience it seems rather odd and arbitrary.
Regarding your distro hunting, if you liked Ubuntu, try Mint.
Right now I'm trying KDE shoehorned onto the Xfce version of Mint Debian (quickly, come out with KDE Debian!), so far I'm liking it, though KDE isn't nearly as polished as in the Opensuse, Ubuntu, or vanilla Mint versions (obviously). Why KDE? I'm scared of when I'm forced to use Gnome Shell, and I personally don't like Xfce (its nice and light, but perhaps a bit too sparse. I loved OpenSuse, but also loved the idea of a rolling release, but Tumbleweed choked, and eventually decided to cease letting me update files, also apt is one of the sexiest things in the world. So far I'm happy with the experience, but I'd much prefer a native KDE version, I'm having a hard time remembering what features make it generally pleasant in other versions.
. Despite all that and people constantly saying dumb things that aren't true like "linux is for geeks" or "linux is hard" or "linux is for technical people" when in reality it depends on the version.
Its gotten better, but those phrases still, sadly, stand. Perhaps I'm bitter because I'm once again fishing for a decent distro (anyone have anything to say about Aptosid?), but Linux still isn't as easy to use as OS X or Windows. Sure, its more versatile and powerful, but that is something that only matters to geeks and technical people.Yes, the days of spending hours hand writing config files has passed (though not completely, no distro will support sound over HDMI on an Ion chip without messing with ALSA), but it still isn't as easy to use, it still breaks for somewhat arbitrary reasons, and Linux coders still can't make a GUI to save their lives.
When both Gnome and Ubuntu jumped the shark, ruining my years of Distro stability, I had to go fishing for a decent distro. None of them were very friendly, half of the ones I tried wouldn't recognize my 8 year old wifi chip. All them them were very, very, different, with different ways of doing things. Most of them have incomprehensible config GUIs.
Hell, there isn't even decent media software. When I was trying to make a Linux based HTPC, I couldn't find anything simple enough to use as a "roll your own" jukebox at a party, where people of all levels of computer skill could access music, and create playlists (ala iTunes party shuffle). I couldn't even find anything that was stable with a very large library (50Gb+). I spend around a whole weekend just trying various media players, to see if anything would even come close to my needs. None did. Well, Songbird was close, but they discontinued Linux support, and it still liked to crash or go unresponsive. What software there is, that a normal person would want, all looks terrible, and is often wrapped in an impenetrable mess of a GUI (with no consistency, even).
Hell, even the core isn't quite there. The Linux filesystem, for all its functional and logical glory, sucks for the average user. The fact that I still need to use the command prompt daily doesn't help either (I personally don't mind, buy my parents would). When something breaks in Linux, it breaks, when something breaks in modern iterations of Windows, there is generally a quick fix, and it generally is 100% the fault of the user.
I can attest to this, since I'm not a technical user. I'm a geek, sure, but I'm pretty much trying to teach myself Linux as I go. I'm not an expert user. I'm also not the average joe, since I've been attached to a key board for 28 years, and have probably tried around 300 distros over the years, waiting for Linux to be mature enough to be my daily OS. I love Linux, I use daily now. But it still isn't at the point where I'd recommend it to a complete novice. Ubuntu was making me hopeful that that point would be coming soon, but lately I have my doubts (Unity, wtf?). Hell, the easiest to use GUI (Gnome) decided to kill themselves as well. Its as if the community decided that they might be able to stand on their own (desktop wise), and got scared.
Though, I suppose, I respect the idea behind Unity and Gnome Shell, Linux should try to just be a Windows/OS X clone, and should try being competent on its own merits, in its own way. If I wanted OS X or Windows, I'd be running them. Sadly both implications failed completely. And going for "simpler than OS X" is probably a mistake, since Linux' strength sure as hell isn't its simplicity.
I personally think people pick their favorite "school" based on their pre-existing views and agendas, and not on any actual merits of their philosophies.
Also, the way you put it sort of hurts the Austrians, at least in my eyes. Theory is useless without observations. Where observations are somewhat useful with the judicious use of statistics and large data sets.
Personally I think both of them are completely useless. Both of them, applied, have caused a decent amount of harm. Neither of them, applied, have seemed to do the slightest bit of good. And generally people who vocally subscribe, and show brand loyalty, to any of them are as idiotic as people who declare themselves as following one of the the two established political agendas. Its just as arbitrary. Reading debates about which of the various schools of economics is gospel leads to the conclusion that economics has more in common with religion than with science. There is no way to conclusively falsify any claim, and thus the argument never, ever, can have an actual objective conclusion.
Shrinking government spending (while deregulating private activity) caused a boom in China.
A) I don't think China's version of deregulating has quite the meaning you want...
B) Would you like to be a worker bee in China? I sure as hell wouldn't, nor would most people, thus it is a horrible example.
C) Germany is very different than the U.S. For one they rely less on publicly traded companies. They also actually MAKE stuff, and then export it. Also, from what I read, a lot of German CEOs actually strive to be ethical, and responsible. Furthermore, Germany is currently "stimulating" a large chunk of Europe.
D) "Too involved"? Compared to who? You'll find that most of the countries in this world, that are doing well, have very involved Governments, most of which have a socialist bent. Libertarian utopias, on the other hand, are few and far between.
E) Wait, removing the Government from companies is the key... and you cite China? Huh.
How did Google Plus fail? Sure, the hype died off, so the numbers dropped. But last I checked (quickly clicks a link); the community is still doing fine.
Actually, when I was in Las Vegas over last weekend I posted a few things (with the location enabled), and managed to quickly grab around 2-4 followers a post, some of whom are actually rather interesting people. The same post (well, a link to the Google post, since Facebook has a completely arbitrary character limit, forcing conversations along the most inane and content free of lines) on Facebook got me absolutely nothing but a few "lol"s and a few useless likes.
Hell, I've managed to get in conversations with strangers over the merits of IKEA, by flippantly posting something to Google.
Sure, everyday I get twice as many nuggets of insight on my Facebook account as I do on my Google, but then again I only follow half as many people as well (since a lot of my friends are inexplicably loyal to Facebook).
For an invitation only Beta that isn't feature complete yet, I'd say Google Plus is doing just fine.
Also, Yelp is getting to be less than worthless. I was looking for reviews of a local crepe restaurant, and one of the top reviews was highly negative because the reviewer didn't like crepes. Not didn't like this restaurant's, but didn't like them at all. One of my favorite restaurants has been down voted only because it isn't owned by the same guy, even while the review admits the food is unchanged. I pretty much completely ignore Yelp now.
Not that Zagat is at all relevant anymore either. Perhaps their going to plug it into the reviews that come up in Maps, those are generally worse than Yelps, even.
Or look at Ron Paul this year. He got 2nd place in the Iowa Straw Poll, less than a percentage point behind Bachmann. Still, the media refuses to talk about him as if he were a serious candidate. It's obvious that what the people want simply doesn't matter
This does annoy me. In the last primary Dennis Kucinich was my favorite (Holy Cow, the last remaining liberal!), and even though he had zero chance of being elected, the media still either ignored him, or basically made him a laughing stock for things not at all related to politics ("zomg, he saw a UFO!"). Or Howard Dean, who basically got kicked out because of a single out of context clip of him being enthusiastic at a rally (which everyone does), a clip that the media decided was more important than anything else in the universe, and played ad naseum sans all context. This election, I already know who is going to win the Republican primary (Rick Perry), based wholly on media enthusiasm. He is the favorite of the media, thus will get more exposure, and thus will win the primary (at least). Unless, of course, he does something to loose favor with the media or their boards of directors.
But... the fact that people vote for who the media (or anyone) wants them to vote for is a deeper problem. I'm fully aware I'm using the term "the media" in a sense that could be confused for a conspiracy. I don't mean it this way. I largely mean it in the context of annoying 24 hour cable news networks, where gaining ratings, holding viewers, and maintaining a brand image are more important than actual social utility. Our politicians are chosen by their potential for spectacle, over their actual useful attributes. This is fine, the market wants this, so... The sad thing is that we take them seriously.
Why? We lack the desire, or will, to educate ourselves. Beyond that, we lack the basics of education that allow a vast majority of us to be able to freely, and independently, evaluate claims. Basic critical thinking skills. This is one thing that annoys me about the current state of the political right. The country will never get better unless voters get better, and voters will never get better without cheap, ubiquitous, education. Democracy depends on "informed voters", not just voters. Voters who are willing, at times, to not get their way for the good of the country as a whole. Voters who realize that America means more than them getting their petty wishes. We might also realize that ignorance (ala Bachmann and Palin) is not a desirable characteristic for those in power, even if we like the sound of their baseless mumbling.
We should also realize that our current state of moronic, petty, partisan bickering is not, NOT, desirable, or entertaining. It almost completely killed our (already ill) economy. And there was a contingent cheering it on, which made me sick.
Obviously there is more to this than just education. Power is also stacked against us (the people). Power is money, and money is the ability to get your message across. This leaves a vast majority of us silent and invisible. What are my desires and wishes against multi-billion dollar corporations?
All of this is inevitable. Especially based on the American form of capitalism, and the unique aspects of our character. I'm not attacking capitalism, mind. I'm just saying that we have needed, for a long time, checks to keep it from gobbling up our ability to control our government. Basically a way to limit the ways for money to translate in to political capital. Oddly, we're working in the opposite direction now.
I do think if someone like Ron Paul won a clear majority (which would require voters to evaluate him on their terms and not just take what the media feeds them), he would be president. I don't think our system is that broken, yet. If only for the (tin foil hat time) reason that the system is already shored up from below, so no one saw, or prepared for that eventuality. Once in office he might be slagged constantly, though.
I've been pondering a "citizens pac", or lobby group for a long time. Us little folk really need to organize on the same scale as corporate interests.
Sorry for being ranty, its better than packing.
Long live Ghadaffi?
I don't get your point.
Judging from 99% of of people I've heard bandying about the term "revolution", I'd probably be on the street fighting against you, an in favor of our absolutely corrupt, somewhat evil, ELECTED, representative government. You might be a different type of revolutionary than most, for all I know, so don't take it personally.
Most of the would-be revolutionaries I've mean, read about, etc... fall into two camps. Lunatics or Authoritarians who are mad that things aren't they way they perceive as the singular, a priori, truth. Most of the lunatics are white-supremacy types, and i sure as well would fight to keep them from recieving any small modicum of control. The latter bit are mostly (these days) Libertarian Utopians, and Tea partiers, and both of their versions of Utopia sound more like hell to me (and probably around 50% of everyone else). In the 60's 70's, this also included the far-left lunatic fringe, but they've all pretty much died off now. I say authoritarian, for these two groups, since they have their panties in a twist because voters voted for people who don't agree with their personal philosophy (as such) of governance. So it would be okay to force their views on people, but not for others to do the same to them. Worse, they (and the lunatics) hold ideals above the real world, and real people, and are will to make people suffer for mere subjective ideas. They, in other words, know better.
Nothing good has ever come from people who claim to "know better", who subsequently force their will on others. Right now, in America, to be a "revolutionary", is actually just wanting to be a tyrant.
No, we are not perfect. Yes, there are tons of things I would change. Yes, we're probably at the brink of decline. Yes, we have TONS of things to be ashamed of. But... All of our faults fall onto the people. Sure, politicians are the people who do the actions, but we voted them in, watch as they do evil, and then, this is the important bit, vote them in again. We, the people, willfully refuse to acknowledge third parties or affiliated candidates. We the people listen to the media uncritically, and always vote for whoever spent the most money on advertising. We the people hate the educated ("damn elitists"), we hate intellectuals (to the point of making it an inexplicable slander), we want to vote for "normal" people who are as moronic, myopic, and uneducated, as us. Hell, we would NEVER even vote for a person who doesn't look good on T.V., they have to look like they escaped from a daytime soap opera.
We have the government we deserve. If you don't like it, become an activist. If it really looks like a tyranny (which would be ironic, since we're talking of revolution without the fear of ours doors being kicked in, or disappearing in the night), then pick up arms. But only if all other non-violent options have been exhausted. And after you evaluate WHY yu want to rain misery down on the innocent, non-caring, civilians of our country... is it because your not getting your way, or because we're living in a genuine (thing chunks of Africa) tyranny.
...the problem is that when they copy too much that a customer can't honestly tell the difference between two products. That is where Apple has a case, and Samsung doesn't.
I can tell the difference. One is a slightly more square black rectangle, and the other is a slightly more elongated rectangle that says, in visible letters, "Samsung".
If consumers are that dumb... I don't think the patent would help.
The icon thing is more valid, except for the fact that EVERYTHING HAS ICONS, and most of them are aligned in a grid. Right now both my KDE and Win7 descktops are infringing on Apple's IP. My Desktop is even displaying this "grid of icons" on a large black rectangle with rounded corners. Actual my Droid X, from straight on, is a black rectangle with a grid of icons. EVERY smart phone is a black rectangle with icons that can be in a grid. Almost every bit of technology is a rectangle with rounded corners with icons that may or may not be in a grid. Going to Fry's Electronics yesterday, every single tablet on display was a black rectangle with rounded corners.
Having a patent on such superfluous things as a basic shape, and a basic (and ubiquitous) way of arranging icons, is akin to me having a patent on "a rectangular object supported by 2 or more legs, on which objects such as a computer, may be arraigned"
On the bright side Samsung and Motorola have REAL patents, such as things that actually are necessary for the operation of phones. So when Apple says "we own basic geometry", Motorola can quip back "Good luck using that without basic phone functionality". All of this would have been avoided if Apple played nicely, but they decided that they are above the usual "tit for a tat" way of doing business ("we have some patents, you have some patents, you can use ours if we can use yours, saving millions on lawsuits!"). This is a nice way of telling Apple that they aren't special, they aren't actually that innovative (technologically), nor are they at all important within the market. People can't live without Apple, but they can't without the actual nuts-and-bolts.
iRonic, even.
...while its proper name, given by Native Americans, is Weemoteeuktuk.
Proper to whom? Which group of Native Americans, there are tons of them up there. The Navajo, the Ute, the Hopi, the Paiute, the Havasupai, the Hualapai? I'm sure I'm missing some tribes.
I wasn't aware that names weren't allowed to change. The first name something is given, is its name forever. I'm sure this is going to make me loose some "cultural feel good woo" points, but I'm past the point of caring. A name is a name, it isn't a magical identifier. The proper name for the Grand Canyon, in English, is "The Grand Canyon". Why is this proper? Because if I mention it to another English speaker they will know what the hell I'm talking about. If I say "Weemoteeuktuk", no one (even most natives) won't have a damn clue. If, in whatever language, "Weemoteeuktuk" is meaningful, and common, then that is the proper name within the smaller community, though they too will recognize what I'm referring to what I say "The Grand Canyon", making the term much more useful and ubiquitous. And thus superior, and this closer to "proper".
No, I don't think some mythical sense of inclusion is more important than clarity and the ability to communicate. The latter are the point of language, the former is for the the sociologists and odd Caucasian apologists.
Now there is a complaint I don't think I've heard, much less with so much reiteration.
I haven't had a docking station for anything I own since I bought some old HP digital camera. I didn't think people used them anymore, for much of anything. It would be basically a large, expensive, block of plastic with a USB cord poking through it. Most people used stands, it seems, or at least looking at the large consumer frenzy surrounding the iPad. I'm pretty sure any stand for the iPad would work for the Nook Color, as well.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you.
You are correct. I found out how to overclock my 300mhz CPU to 325Mhz by submerging it in a Wesson's Oil bath, circulated and cooled by a salvaged window air conditioning unit. Ah.. /., I strangely love you.
Compared to a decade ago, the front page looks more like a yellow tabloid than a serious tech site. Slashvertisements, titles and summaries chosen for shock value rather than informative content, clueless submitters, incompetent editors.
But a decade ago every other story was a case mod story, and the rest were dupes of previous case mod stories. As long as I've been reading /., people have always complained about how it is going down hill. Yet somehow it has never actually died (unlike every other site founded around the same time... ahem K5). Slashdot is undead, and has always been undead.
Of all the things I was doing a decade ago, reading /. daily is the only thing that survived. I have no clue what I'd do with the time I could reclaim by quitting /. Probably make myself into something impressive, rich, and important.
You have some very valid points, and I pretty much agree with you.
As I stated, there should be room for anonymity, or at least pseudo-anonymity. But no service provider should be forced to not require real names either. That is why I don't see the point of the Google+ nerd-rage, if being anonymous is personally required, or desired, then don't use the service. Or just use a convincing real-sounding fake name.
The most amusing bit of Google+ rage I've heard was from someone who uses their real name on Facebook, and have a somewhat successful blog under their real name, rage-quitting Google+ because they couldn't use a pseudonym. That and a lot of the people publicisizing this issue are listed as "internet celebrities" or "personalities", whose real name are publicly available. To them, the seeds of this debate, it is more about not being allowed to use their brand name than being forced to use their real name.
A bigger problem is the societal one, that some of us feel the (legitimate, in your case) need to hide our views lest we be judged. The fact that somehow our private lives have become linked to our professionalism ones, with the professional one basically destroying our ability to have a decent private life. You being a vocal atheist (or whatnot) should really have no bearing on your merits as a teacher. They are not really linked, but somehow we decided that they are. Sure, there are things that should be held against people (teachers liking kiddie-porn, for instance, or heavy substance abuse, or such), but basic views and political leanings shouldn't play a role. You should be solely judged on your merits within your profession. Teaching high school physics (or whatnot) has nothing to do with you being a Buddhist Republican who likes Jello, or a Satanist Libertarian who likes puppies, or an atheistic, socialist who voted for Kodos.
But what is wrong with pseudo-anonyminity, with aliases as is already common practice 'Omestes?' They provide a reputation, but with the ability to hold personal, family and professional lives in strict isolation, and giving people the chance to reinvent themselves as they mature without being haunted by the immaturity of their youth.
Again, nothing against it. Even if I'm slowly moving towards using my actual identity in some domains (mainly since either my credibility is held to a higher necessary standard, or for legal standing), I'm not about to ditch my Slashdot (and many other online services) handle. I'm not sure being "Omestes" is necessary anymore, but I like it, and have gone by it since some point in the mid 90's. It isn't really an alternative identity anymore, I wouldn't say anything under this alias, that I wouldn't say to you in real life, as myself. I probably keep it mostly for habit, nostalgia, and the fact that in some circles it carries some modicum of credibility. One thing though, it is VERY, VERY hard to start using my real name, even in limited domains. It goes against all of the rules I learned during my formative online (and BBS) years. Adding my real name to my camera's meta-data took weeks of deliberation and stress. I wish I joking.