Jon Katz you have truly offended me, and I'm sure many others.
Not me. Speak the truth, Jon - the Pretender in Chief looked like what he is, a scared little man all out of his depth. Guiliani, on the other hand, impressed even me - and before this I wouldn't have pissed on him if he was on fire.
serif fonts are usually easier to read than sans-serif ones
For print, yes, you want black-on-white serif text.
Monitors aren't print. (Which is why WYSIWYG word processors are hideous by nature.) Glowing
white backgrounds are not the same as reflective paper, and pixel DPI is about an order of magnitude less than good print.
I like white-on-dark blue, green-on-black, or dark-blue-on-cream colors, and bold "lucidatypewriter" fonts, for my xterm, exmh, and emacs windows. But for some odd reason I prefer Times (Adobe) on my browser...
Personally, everytime i have to deal with GDB i feel like going outside and kicking cars - it's a painful experience...MSDEV/VC6 is a 'GUI' - but man my performance with it is an order of magnitude higher.
It would be like taking all your bills, letters, homework assignments (or real work), picturers, porn, etc and threw them into a big pile on your desk.
Don't bother preventing the bad guys from having guns...
Can I suggest you read one of the many news stories on recent events? Because then you might learn that these fuckers didn't have guns.
But on the general case of bad guys with guns - you can't prevent it. Strategies that depend on "first, we'll get all the guns away from the bad guys" are doomed from the start. You can't keep guns away from determined people - hell, the Nazis couldn't keep guns out of the hands of the French Underground! Gun control keeps guns away from bad guys about as well as drug prohibition keeps heroin away from junkies.
Given that fact, having a lot of armed good guys makes sense. Yes, airplanes might require additional considerations - special training, use of "safety" ammo that won't penetrate the cabin, and so on, before you can carry your gun on a plane.
I do the same thing and I am left handed and use the mouse in my left hand. I do not use the left hand config for the buttons though.
I'm right-handed, but mouse left. (With right-hand button setup.) This confuses the hell out of anyone else who sits down at my workstation...
But I'm more likely to use the keyboard to move around a webpage, than my mouse. Since the only way I can figure that they're doing this is with Javascript "mouseover" events, I think this might partially defeat the tracking.
All that a GUI does for you is 'wrap' the command line so the user doesn't have to be bothered with remembering the 'make' syntax for example.
Sometimes, yes. For example, there are tools that provide a GUI frontend to CVS (e.g., tkCVS), or to the MH mail software (e.g., exmh). That's a great approach, because you can still use the underlying CLI programs in scripts, or over a telnet/ssh session, or whatever.
However, the usual GUI way of things is that there is no CLI program under the GUI - the only interface to the software is the GUI. Suck.
I've never been in a shop that used GUI tools for programming; but then, I've been doing lower level stuff like operating systems, firewalls, spacecraft ground systems, and telephony. If I were putting together pretty GUI apps for end users, I might have a use for a GUI GUI-builder tool.
But for what I'm doing now, I want and need nothing but GNU emacs, gdb, and the C++ compliler. (Which is IBM's "Visual Age", though none of us use any of it's "Visual" features!)
Yep, some stores insist on a phone # (Circuit City for one).
I've never had a problem with telling them "I'd rather not give that out." Although one over-enthusiastic Radio Shack drone launched into a whole speech about how Tandy respects customer privacy, yada yada yada...but he sold me the damned multimeter anyway.
DUI accusation: thousands of dollars in legal fees and fines.
Gob of caulk in the intake hose: priceless.
Yes, there ought to be breathalyzers built into cars, at least if we're going to prosecute drunk drivers based on BAC - there's something fundamentally wrong when you can't know whether or not you're violating the law without taking extraordinary steps. But no way in hell should it be transmitting readings.
Palistine was a state, yes it was TAKEN from them for the jews. Remember what happened to millions of jews before they officially set up the state of israel.
Yes, I remember. But if someone destroys your house and kill your family, you don't get to take over your neighbor's house because you always liked his swimming pool. The person who does the damage is the one who has to make restitution.
If the Holocaust were the main issue, a homeland for European Jews would have been carved out of Germany. But that's not what Zionist radicals wanted, and they managed to twist the German crimes against Jews into an excuse for committing crimes against Palestinians.
Isreal - like the U.S. - is stolen land. Like the U.S., it was stolen based on faith (faith in "manifest destiny" in the U.S. case). And like the U.S., it's been around too long for the natives to have a hope in hell of getting their land back.
To all Moslems there is a Islamic world and a non-Islamic world. The goal (in present time, radicals) of every Islamic person is to destroy the 'Evil' non-Islamic world...One Moselem goal/belief is to simply take over all the land/riches for their own
Your anti-Islamic prejudice and ignorance is nothing short of astounding. I'm tempted to think that you're trolling, but unfortunately there are a large number of people who do hold the beliefs you illustrate.
Followers of Islam are no more a monolithic group than are Christians, Jews, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, or Zorasterians. There are wise people, and scary mofos, in each group. Unfortuately, the scary mofos are the ones in power right now in Israel, and they're encouraging the scary mofos amoung the Palestinians.
If he wants you to condemn it as immoral he needs good reasons. If he wants to believe it himself, he doesn't need anything.
If he wants to believe it himself, and still be considered a rational being, he needs reasons; observations and arguments that lead to conclusions.
Of course, if he doesn't care about being rational, that's fine; rationality has its limits. ("But when you're good and crazy, ooh, the sky's the limit!") But honesty should then compel him to say, "While I have no rational basis for doing so, I still want to condemn homosexuality."
What I was trying to point out is that our society has certain morals.
No. Society has mores - social norms. Government has laws - institutionalized social norms. Both of these are quite different than morals.
All I wanted to say is that there are limits to what is ok and what isn't. For me, homosexuality is past the limit of ok.
Sorry, but if you want to condemn something as immoral you'll have to come with a more compelling argument than "past the limit of ok". You'll need rigorous and defensible criteria to bifuricate the universe of potential actions into "ok" and "not ok".
Also, I am not one of those bible-thumping idiots who do not think for themselves.
Ok, then start thinking. Give us some of your moral philosophy. Give us your justification for condemning certain types of love.
And, if find you can't give one, have the intellectual honesty to re-examine your moral indignation and see if it rests on nothing more than a feeling of "ooh! gross!".
See the word "consensual" in my post? Childhood is pretty much defined by the condition of not being responsible - therefore being unable to give meaningful consent.
Morality is defined by the society.
No. Mores (more-ays) - social norms - are defined by the society. Morality is defined by several different philosophical theories, each unprovable. (Though some are more internally consistant than others, and some rely on dubious, or disprovable, metaphysical assumptions.)
With that said, I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.
Under what rational system of morality could one's preference of partners for consensual sex be "morally wrong"?
Is it morally wrong for a man to be attracted to overweight women? To pregnant women? To female amputees? To midgets? You can find specialized pr0n for each of these fetishes.
I find some of these preferences a bit disturbing - but certainly not wrong. Just somewhat creepy. But people have creepy tastes in all sorts of matters - doesn't make them wrong, just means that I won't be joining them for an all day festival of pr0n featuring all 300+ pound people, or all guy-on-guy action. Neither is to my taste.
A human being can't control who they are attracted too, any more than then they could control their taste in food.
Can you imagine: "Gee, I like the taste of vanilla." "Sinner! Preferring vanilla over chocolate is morally wrong!"
Well, first of all, his rm command was totally wrong, which I figured I wouldn't flame him for...
You are right, I am hoist on my own petard, I hang my head in shame for such a dumb mistake I and deserve to be mildly flamed (for that error, not for the overall point of CLI for servanr vs. GUI for tool, which I still maintain.) D'oh!
Non-entertainment systems should be easy by design, rather than conjuring obstacles for the thrill of overcoming them...The popularity of archaic command-line interfaces in the UNIX subculture could perhaps be understood as a consequence of gamer-like behavior among hobbyists and tinkerers.
Nonsense. The CLI is easy - for some things.
It all depends on the task you want to perform. "rm -r *.o" is closer telling my faithful servant to "remove all object files from here on down" than is "click on Start - mouse over Search - click on For Files Or Folders - fill in.o in the appropriate field - click through several levels to specify the appropriate target to Look In - click on Search Now - click on Edit - click on Select All - click on Edit - click on Cut - click on Yes." A GUI is a lousy way to instruct a servant.
On the other hand, for things I want to do myself, using the machine as a magic typewriter or paintbrush rather than as a servant, a GUI is the better choice; a verbal interface would be a lousy way to control a magic paintbrush. (Though it would be useful in some types of line and block drawings.)
Actaully, most high-schools have this new high-tech thing that actually measures mass. It's called a beam balance. You have some known quantity on one side, and your unknown on the other, then you compare the two.
I suggest you take a second or two and think about
how a beam balance works. Does it work in free-fall, for example? No? It balances the force of gravity on both sides, you say? Gee, sounds more like "weighing" than "actually measuring mass" to me, even it does cancel out the "g" terms for you.
Also, 9.8 m/s^2 is only at sea-level. Raise your hand if you live a sea-level?
Close enough to it that the difference in g won't show up in a figure with only two significant digits.
As for why we don't use 6.0221e26 (I think that's right) carbon atoms as the standard kilogram, the only way we have on the macroscopic scale of determining how many atoms are in something is to weigh it.
It would be 6.02e26 hydrogen atoms; a kilomole of carbon would be 12 kilograms. Actually 12 and a fraction, since there are different isotopes; you'd have to define which one.
We could determine the number of atoms by volume , which we have a standard for, and density, which is a property of the material used and of temperature (defined by the triple point of water). Basically, define the density of (for example) distilled, de-ionized water (I beleive it can be filtered to consist only of H-1 and O-16, sort of the reverse of making heavy water) to be 1 at STP.
Yes, you can't count individual atoms on that scale. But considering the difficulties NIST is having in keeping their mass reference refering to the same mass, sounds like this would be an improvement.
A kilogram is a unit of mass not weight. Weight is dependant on gravity. Mass is not.
True enough, but if you want to determine the mass of a small object, how do you do it? Odds are really good you're going to weigh it in some manner, and divide by 9.8 m/s^2.
According to NIST, they've got a variance on the order of 3% per century in the observed mass (probably measured by weight) of the standard kilo brick.
We don't have rights. We exchanged those old useless things for free school lunches and Medicare.
Non sequitor. Yes, many personal liberties are eroding, dangerously so. No, it has little or nothing to do with the pennies a day out of your daily $21 federal tax bill that go towards making sure the ruling class doesn't completely kill off those they exploit.
The next time you get stopped at a DUI checkpoint and asked for your papers and destination, ask the uniform about your Fourth Amendment rights.
"Papers", maybe, at least to the extent of your licence and registration. You could decline to show, but they could decline to grant you the priviledge of operating your vehicle on the public roads...it's a little iffy.
Destination, though...I've never had a cop ask me where I was headed during a traffic stop, and I wouldn't answer if one did. That's my business, and I believe there's plenty of precedent on that issue. (They can ask, just like anyone else could ask "where ya headed?"; they just can't compel you to answer any more than anyone else could.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not me. Speak the truth, Jon - the Pretender in Chief looked like what he is, a scared little man all out of his depth. Guiliani, on the other hand, impressed even me - and before this I wouldn't have pissed on him if he was on fire.
For print, yes, you want black-on-white serif text.
Monitors aren't print. (Which is why WYSIWYG word processors are hideous by nature.) Glowing white backgrounds are not the same as reflective paper, and pixel DPI is about an order of magnitude less than good print.
I like white-on-dark blue, green-on-black, or dark-blue-on-cream colors, and bold "lucidatypewriter" fonts, for my xterm, exmh, and emacs windows. But for some odd reason I prefer Times (Adobe) on my browser...
And unlike GUI-only tools, you get your choice of several front-ends. This is the right way to build software.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Filing it all under "miscellaneous" not only saves time, it's a religious devotion to the One True Goddess.
Can I suggest you read one of the many news stories on recent events? Because then you might learn that these fuckers didn't have guns .
But on the general case of bad guys with guns - you can't prevent it. Strategies that depend on "first, we'll get all the guns away from the bad guys" are doomed from the start. You can't keep guns away from determined people - hell, the Nazis couldn't keep guns out of the hands of the French Underground! Gun control keeps guns away from bad guys about as well as drug prohibition keeps heroin away from junkies.
Given that fact, having a lot of armed good guys makes sense. Yes, airplanes might require additional considerations - special training, use of "safety" ammo that won't penetrate the cabin, and so on, before you can carry your gun on a plane.
Or you leave the room, or you hit the "mute" button. Or you tape, and skip over the commericals during playback.
I'm right-handed, but mouse left. (With right-hand button setup.) This confuses the hell out of anyone else who sits down at my workstation...
But I'm more likely to use the keyboard to move around a webpage, than my mouse. Since the only way I can figure that they're doing this is with Javascript "mouseover" events, I think this might partially defeat the tracking.
Sometimes, yes. For example, there are tools that provide a GUI frontend to CVS (e.g., tkCVS), or to the MH mail software (e.g., exmh). That's a great approach, because you can still use the underlying CLI programs in scripts, or over a telnet/ssh session, or whatever.
However, the usual GUI way of things is that there is no CLI program under the GUI - the only interface to the software is the GUI. Suck.
I've never been in a shop that used GUI tools for programming; but then, I've been doing lower level stuff like operating systems, firewalls, spacecraft ground systems, and telephony. If I were putting together pretty GUI apps for end users, I might have a use for a GUI GUI-builder tool.
But for what I'm doing now, I want and need nothing but GNU emacs, gdb, and the C++ compliler. (Which is IBM's "Visual Age", though none of us use any of it's "Visual" features!)
I've never had a problem with telling them "I'd rather not give that out." Although one over-enthusiastic Radio Shack drone launched into a whole speech about how Tandy respects customer privacy, yada yada yada...but he sold me the damned multimeter anyway.
It's cliche but it's true:
Remote DUI sensor: $100.
DUI accusation: thousands of dollars in legal fees and fines.
Gob of caulk in the intake hose: priceless.
Yes, there ought to be breathalyzers built into cars, at least if we're going to prosecute drunk drivers based on BAC - there's something fundamentally wrong when you can't know whether or not you're violating the law without taking extraordinary steps. But no way in hell should it be transmitting readings.
Yes, I remember. But if someone destroys your house and kill your family, you don't get to take over your neighbor's house because you always liked his swimming pool. The person who does the damage is the one who has to make restitution.
If the Holocaust were the main issue, a homeland for European Jews would have been carved out of Germany. But that's not what Zionist radicals wanted, and they managed to twist the German crimes against Jews into an excuse for committing crimes against Palestinians.
Isreal - like the U.S. - is stolen land. Like the U.S., it was stolen based on faith (faith in "manifest destiny" in the U.S. case). And like the U.S., it's been around too long for the natives to have a hope in hell of getting their land back.
Your anti-Islamic prejudice and ignorance is nothing short of astounding. I'm tempted to think that you're trolling, but unfortunately there are a large number of people who do hold the beliefs you illustrate.
Followers of Islam are no more a monolithic group than are Christians, Jews, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, or Zorasterians. There are wise people, and scary mofos, in each group. Unfortuately, the scary mofos are the ones in power right now in Israel, and they're encouraging the scary mofos amoung the Palestinians.
If he wants to believe it himself, and still be considered a rational being, he needs reasons; observations and arguments that lead to conclusions.
Of course, if he doesn't care about being rational, that's fine; rationality has its limits. ("But when you're good and crazy, ooh, the sky's the limit!") But honesty should then compel him to say, "While I have no rational basis for doing so, I still want to condemn homosexuality."
Ok, then start thinking. Give us some of your moral philosophy. Give us your justification for condemning certain types of love.
And, if find you can't give one, have the intellectual honesty to re-examine your moral indignation and see if it rests on nothing more than a feeling of "ooh! gross!".
Under what rational system of morality could one's preference of partners for consensual sex be "morally wrong"?
Is it morally wrong for a man to be attracted to overweight women? To pregnant women? To female amputees? To midgets? You can find specialized pr0n for each of these fetishes.
I find some of these preferences a bit disturbing - but certainly not wrong. Just somewhat creepy. But people have creepy tastes in all sorts of matters - doesn't make them wrong, just means that I won't be joining them for an all day festival of pr0n featuring all 300+ pound people, or all guy-on-guy action. Neither is to my taste.
A human being can't control who they are attracted too, any more than then they could control their taste in food.
Can you imagine: "Gee, I like the taste of vanilla." "Sinner! Preferring vanilla over chocolate is morally wrong!"
No, not a troll, though you are correct about the find command - I fucked that up royally.
No more than having to pay a songwriter royalties if you play a song on the radio, or in a nightclub, but not in your house.
I have my doubts about the specifics, and about its use for software, but for other sorts of digital "content" this is generally the right direction.
Nonsense. The CLI is easy - for some things.
It all depends on the task you want to perform. "rm -r *.o" is closer telling my faithful servant to "remove all object files from here on down" than is "click on Start - mouse over Search - click on For Files Or Folders - fill in .o in the appropriate field - click through several levels to specify the appropriate target to Look In - click on Search Now - click on Edit - click on Select All - click on Edit - click on Cut - click on Yes." A GUI is a lousy way to instruct a servant.
On the other hand, for things I want to do myself, using the machine as a magic typewriter or paintbrush rather than as a servant, a GUI is the better choice; a verbal interface would be a lousy way to control a magic paintbrush. (Though it would be useful in some types of line and block drawings.)
Close enough to it that the difference in g won't show up in a figure with only two significant digits.
It would be 6.02e26 hydrogen atoms; a kilomole of carbon would be 12 kilograms. Actually 12 and a fraction, since there are different isotopes; you'd have to define which one.
We could determine the number of atoms by volume , which we have a standard for, and density, which is a property of the material used and of temperature (defined by the triple point of water). Basically, define the density of (for example) distilled, de-ionized water (I beleive it can be filtered to consist only of H-1 and O-16, sort of the reverse of making heavy water) to be 1 at STP.
Yes, you can't count individual atoms on that scale. But considering the difficulties NIST is having in keeping their mass reference refering to the same mass, sounds like this would be an improvement.
True enough, but if you want to determine the mass of a small object, how do you do it? Odds are really good you're going to weigh it in some manner, and divide by 9.8 m/s^2.
According to NIST, they've got a variance on the order of 3% per century in the observed mass (probably measured by weight) of the standard kilo brick.
Wow! I thought the recent news of observations that show that the fine structure constant or the speed of light may be minutely changing as the universe ages were pretty far out, but to think that mass is this variable...
Non sequitor. Yes, many personal liberties are eroding, dangerously so. No, it has little or nothing to do with the pennies a day out of your daily $21 federal tax bill that go towards making sure the ruling class doesn't completely kill off those they exploit.
"Papers", maybe, at least to the extent of your licence and registration. You could decline to show, but they could decline to grant you the priviledge of operating your vehicle on the public roads...it's a little iffy.
Destination, though...I've never had a cop ask me where I was headed during a traffic stop, and I wouldn't answer if one did. That's my business, and I believe there's plenty of precedent on that issue. (They can ask, just like anyone else could ask "where ya headed?"; they just can't compel you to answer any more than anyone else could.)