Click the menu, it's open, click the item in the menu and the menu closes, your selection executes. In between the first and the second click you could traverse your mouse cursor around the screen twice and do the lambada for all XFce cares.
I think that was his point. If it's so easy for people to get 60k jobs then why are CalTech grads only averaging 55k. CalTech, for goodness sake! If you graduated from Univ o' Illinois (like ErikZ) then good luck getting one of those easy to get 60k jobs. --
These brainwashed OOP zealots are the insane ones.
It's these zealots you speak of that give OOP its bad name. For the most part, they don't really understand OO design, and don't know when to an not to use it, or how to use it when it is appropriate. The result is a lot of crappy OO software that shouldn't be.
I, for one, find that the Object Oriented philosophy frequently results in much elegant solutions, both in design and in implementation. Just because many (self-proclaimed) Object Oriented Programmers don't understand Object Oriented Programming doesn't make it a bad paradigm.
That's an interesting parallel, except that it isn't very parallel.
In the case of Slim Jims, they are used frequently for legal purposes. It would be difficult to argue that 99.97% of Slim Jim use is illegal. A lot of criminals do use them, but it doesn't make up the overwhelming majority of use in the same way that Napster is overwhelmingly used for illegal purposes.
Napster does have a legal use, but very, very, very (very, very) few always use it legally and that's unlikely to change.
I don't really care one way or the other about scores. Certainly, not about the difference between Score:1 and Score:2. And since I need to deliberately reduce the score, I don't usually bother. (Just for you, I'll do it this time:)
Opinion: If they're going to implement the bonus at all then it ought to be elective. I should have to think enough of my own post to motivated to select the bonus. Not the other way around.
Jesus said that was exactly how and where you should pray: in your closet at home, not in a Church or Synagogue.
AAArrg! I can't stand it...
As with everything, context is important. Jesus was speaking about people who gave lofty public prayers so that they would be admired by men. These people should be praying in closets at home in order to control their pride.
He was not saying there should never be any prayer in public. And he was certainly not saying that there should never be any prayer in churches and synagogues.
If I were to tell you that I was arrested for driving with a burnt out headlight, would you automatically believe me? Or would you suppose it possible that I might be leaving something out of the story?
As for the guy with the cel phone, I find that story very one-sided. The only side I've heard is the one that claims the police were indescriminately arresting people who were merely riding bikes, wearing black clothing, or talking on cel phones. And this guy with his phone is being held on $500,000 bail for misdemeaner phone usage while walking. Something tells me I'm not getting the whole story.
Well, Malcontent, you're making a number of very interesting assumptions.
Police are given guns by the state.
I suppose it's possible that the police held the man a gunpoint and proceded to injure his ear. "If you don't hold still while I rip your ear, I'm gonna blow your head off!" But I doubt it.
If a policeman is unable to function within the parameters of his training and orders when taunted or insulted verbally
I've seen no evidence that the policeman involved here was merely being taunted or verbally abused. Much more likely is that the two were involved in some sort of struggle which resulted from the one doing something unlawful or destructive and the other having the job of stopping the first. One was injured, and since it wasn't the police officer, it must have been abuse of power.
Any policeman who lashes out at protesters
I didn't see any police lashing out at protestors. I did, however, see a number of protestors lashing out at police. I was just watching the news, so maybe it was media bias.
I found it very interesting when I listened to one of the protestors who claimed in an interview that he (among others) were there specifically to goad the police into a brawl. Now why would they want to do that? Think about that. If they could just force the police to cause bodily harm to them then they could claim that their civil rights were violated and that the police were abusing their power.
Obviously, since the police have guns and the protestors don't, the police should never have to resort to any kind of physical struggle (which very well might result in injury). The police, therefore, have the trump card. Or do they?
The protestors know that the police will never shoot an unarmed assailant. Indeed, the police will never even draw their gun and threaten to shoot an unarmed assailant. This gives them the freedom to do just about anything they like as long as they make sure nobody thinks that they have a weapon. So what do you do when you want to force the police to restrain you? You push, shove, threaten, throw things, destroy property, anything as long as it's obvoius that you are unarmed. Eventually, the police are forced to do something to stop you, and then you've got them right where you want them. Because as soon as the police have to use force to restrain you, it's easy to argue in the arena of public opinion that the force was excessive. The police should never have to use "excessive" force because they carry guns.
Try this: Tell a friend to restrain you. Then do anything you can to resist that restraint. Kick and bite and scratch as if your life depended on it. Unless your friend is a whole lot bigger than you and able to restrain you easily, somebody's probably going to get hurt. Now if your friend has a gun which he is not allowed to use, does that make his effort excessive when he finally does restrain you?
Now, I'm not saying that there's no such thing as abuse of police power or that there are no bad cops. Certainly there is and there are, but I'm doubtful of the rampant proliferation of abusive police officers reported by the popular media. I, for one, don't take the evening news at face value.
Ok. I've ranted long enough. One parting quip:
"Officer! That man is stealing my car!"
"Excuse me, sir. Am I going to have to use force to remove you from this vehicle?"
"Why yes, officer. You will."
"Very well, then. Good day, sir."
"Aren't you going to arrest him?"
"Of course not. I would have to use force to arrest him. And in doing so, I might violate his civil rights. Then I would lose my job. Your automobile is merely property, and I'm certainly not putting my job on the line over a property dispute."
"But he's stealing my car!"
"You do have insurance, don't you? I've got a good description of the thief, and if we ever pick him up on another, more serious, charge..."
"But... My car!"
"Don't worry. We usually recover the remains of stolen autos in only a couple of days."
It does if ISPs offer a checkbox on thier signup forms
No, it doesn't. The problem of cost-shifting is not related so much to the user as it is to the provider.
Do you think it costs them nothing to devote hardware cycles to processing every piece of mail that crosses their servers? Do you think it costs regional and backbone providers nothing to commit large amounts of bandwidth to delivering billions and billions of junk emails?
Do you suppose that these costs will eventually trickle down to the user's bill? You better bet they will!
His point is: If you think there's a lot of UCE now, just wait till it's legitimized.
By the way, I've heard good arguments why none of those things would help at all. The quick list:
Saying that they can't forge the header is a nice gesture, but it's only a small improvement. Many spammers broadcast from ISP accounts that are shut down within hours anyway.
The problem with subject tags is that it doesn't eliminate the cost-shifting. Spammers still get a free ride and everybody else pays to deliver and process their junk.
The problem with opt-out lists is that you still have to receive it. Spammers get one free bite. It wouldn't be *too* bad if it were just that, but all they have to do is "change" their "company" and they get another free bite. Repeat indefinitely. In general, opt-out is not a good solution.
And all this is assuming that they actually honor the law at all.
That businesses are saying this is our own **** fault. How many times have you seen "Free beta testing and bug report and submitted patches by the community" in the bullet list of why companies should open source their stuff? What are they supposed to think? What they are going to think is that we are a bunch of liars when they go to the trouble of opening their source and we tell them that we aren't going to do their QA. That will certainly engender maximum trust in the open source philosophy.
I understand what you are saying, but I think we need to get our own propaganda straight.
This thread is too old to be read by anybody but you and me. Anyway...
I agree. And I have also purchased some titles from Loki, as well as commercial software from other companies.
I for one don't mind paying for my entertainment. (Don't even get me started on the mp3 thing!) And I don't mind paying for quality software if it meets my needs.
Stroustrup once said something like "I find almost every use of the term 'C/C++' to be indicative of ignorance."
Well that's his own fault, isn't it? Stroustrup could have called it anything, but he chose `C++' as the name.
So he makes a language that has syntax strikingly similar to C with a name which was a homage to the old language (one part `C' and one part `a C operator'), then calls people who lump them together as similar languages "ignorant."
Did a search for "fire techno" and found one of his songs.
I just did a search for 'fire techno' and got a list of songs most of which had the word 'fire' in their title. (I suppose they must have been of the techno genre.) Nothing by Chris Johnson.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is unlike the GNOME and KDE menus how?
--
80186
--
I think that was his point. If it's so easy for people to get 60k jobs then why are CalTech grads only averaging 55k. CalTech, for goodness sake! If you graduated from Univ o' Illinois (like ErikZ) then good luck getting one of those easy to get 60k jobs.
--
It's these zealots you speak of that give OOP its bad name. For the most part, they don't really understand OO design, and don't know when to an not to use it, or how to use it when it is appropriate. The result is a lot of crappy OO software that shouldn't be.
I, for one, find that the Object Oriented philosophy frequently results in much elegant solutions, both in design and in implementation. Just because many (self-proclaimed) Object Oriented Programmers don't understand Object Oriented Programming doesn't make it a bad paradigm.
--
And how is that different than bringing up MacOS or Windows at a local pub?
--
In the case of Slim Jims, they are used frequently for legal purposes. It would be difficult to argue that 99.97% of Slim Jim use is illegal. A lot of criminals do use them, but it doesn't make up the overwhelming majority of use in the same way that Napster is overwhelmingly used for illegal purposes.
Napster does have a legal use, but very, very, very (very, very) few always use it legally and that's unlikely to change.
--
You don't get out much, do you?
--
I don't really care one way or the other about scores. Certainly, not about the difference between Score:1 and Score:2. And since I need to deliberately reduce the score, I don't usually bother. (Just for you, I'll do it this time :)
Opinion: If they're going to implement the bonus at all then it ought to be elective. I should have to think enough of my own post to motivated to select the bonus. Not the other way around.
--
AAArrg! I can't stand it...
As with everything, context is important. Jesus was speaking about people who gave lofty public prayers so that they would be admired by men. These people should be praying in closets at home in order to control their pride.
He was not saying there should never be any prayer in public. And he was certainly not saying that there should never be any prayer in churches and synagogues.
--
As for the guy with the cel phone, I find that story very one-sided. The only side I've heard is the one that claims the police were indescriminately arresting people who were merely riding bikes, wearing black clothing, or talking on cel phones. And this guy with his phone is being held on $500,000 bail for misdemeaner phone usage while walking. Something tells me I'm not getting the whole story.
--
Kind of like: "It's an apple." "No, it's actually a fruit."
--
This is a link.
--
Oh. I see. They weren't there to cause any trouble after all. They just gathered in Philadelphia to have a barbeque.
--
Police are given guns by the state.
I suppose it's possible that the police held the man a gunpoint and proceded to injure his ear. "If you don't hold still while I rip your ear, I'm gonna blow your head off!" But I doubt it.
If a policeman is unable to function within the parameters of his training and orders when taunted or insulted verbally
I've seen no evidence that the policeman involved here was merely being taunted or verbally abused. Much more likely is that the two were involved in some sort of struggle which resulted from the one doing something unlawful or destructive and the other having the job of stopping the first. One was injured, and since it wasn't the police officer, it must have been abuse of power.
Any policeman who lashes out at protesters
I didn't see any police lashing out at protestors. I did, however, see a number of protestors lashing out at police. I was just watching the news, so maybe it was media bias.
I found it very interesting when I listened to one of the protestors who claimed in an interview that he (among others) were there specifically to goad the police into a brawl. Now why would they want to do that? Think about that. If they could just force the police to cause bodily harm to them then they could claim that their civil rights were violated and that the police were abusing their power.
Obviously, since the police have guns and the protestors don't, the police should never have to resort to any kind of physical struggle (which very well might result in injury). The police, therefore, have the trump card. Or do they?
The protestors know that the police will never shoot an unarmed assailant. Indeed, the police will never even draw their gun and threaten to shoot an unarmed assailant. This gives them the freedom to do just about anything they like as long as they make sure nobody thinks that they have a weapon. So what do you do when you want to force the police to restrain you? You push, shove, threaten, throw things, destroy property, anything as long as it's obvoius that you are unarmed. Eventually, the police are forced to do something to stop you, and then you've got them right where you want them. Because as soon as the police have to use force to restrain you, it's easy to argue in the arena of public opinion that the force was excessive. The police should never have to use "excessive" force because they carry guns.
Try this: Tell a friend to restrain you. Then do anything you can to resist that restraint. Kick and bite and scratch as if your life depended on it. Unless your friend is a whole lot bigger than you and able to restrain you easily, somebody's probably going to get hurt. Now if your friend has a gun which he is not allowed to use, does that make his effort excessive when he finally does restrain you?
Now, I'm not saying that there's no such thing as abuse of police power or that there are no bad cops. Certainly there is and there are, but I'm doubtful of the rampant proliferation of abusive police officers reported by the popular media. I, for one, don't take the evening news at face value.
Ok. I've ranted long enough. One parting quip:
"Excuse me, sir. Am I going to have to use force to remove you from this vehicle?"
"Why yes, officer. You will."
"Very well, then. Good day, sir."
"Aren't you going to arrest him?"
"Of course not. I would have to use force to arrest him. And in doing so, I might violate his civil rights. Then I would lose my job. Your automobile is merely property, and I'm certainly not putting my job on the line over a property dispute."
"But he's stealing my car!"
"You do have insurance, don't you? I've got a good description of the thief, and if we ever pick him up on another, more serious, charge..."
"But... My car!"
"Don't worry. We usually recover the remains of stolen autos in only a couple of days."
--
No, it doesn't. The problem of cost-shifting is not related so much to the user as it is to the provider.
Do you think it costs them nothing to devote hardware cycles to processing every piece of mail that crosses their servers? Do you think it costs regional and backbone providers nothing to commit large amounts of bandwidth to delivering billions and billions of junk emails?
Do you suppose that these costs will eventually trickle down to the user's bill? You better bet they will!
--
By the way, I've heard good arguments why none of those things would help at all. The quick list:
Saying that they can't forge the header is a nice gesture, but it's only a small improvement. Many spammers broadcast from ISP accounts that are shut down within hours anyway.
The problem with subject tags is that it doesn't eliminate the cost-shifting. Spammers still get a free ride and everybody else pays to deliver and process their junk.
The problem with opt-out lists is that you still have to receive it. Spammers get one free bite. It wouldn't be *too* bad if it were just that, but all they have to do is "change" their "company" and they get another free bite. Repeat indefinitely. In general, opt-out is not a good solution.
And all this is assuming that they actually honor the law at all.
--
That businesses are saying this is our own **** fault. How many times have you seen "Free beta testing and bug report and submitted patches by the community" in the bullet list of why companies should open source their stuff? What are they supposed to think? What they are going to think is that we are a bunch of liars when they go to the trouble of opening their source and we tell them that we aren't going to do their QA. That will certainly engender maximum trust in the open source philosophy.
I understand what you are saying, but I think we need to get our own propaganda straight.
--
Bumper stickers are probably already for sale someplace.
--
--
I agree. And I have also purchased some titles from Loki, as well as commercial software from other companies.
I for one don't mind paying for my entertainment. (Don't even get me started on the mp3 thing!) And I don't mind paying for quality software if it meets my needs.
--
I disagree. These are all just baby steps in the right direction. Otherwise we're stuck with the chicken/egg problem:
- There aren't any good games for Linux because of #3.
- Nobody uses Linux to play games because of #1.
- Developers won't make games for Linux because of #2.
At least by making some games (even old ones) we are working to break the cycle.Besides, I kind of like some of these old games.
--
--
Well that's his own fault, isn't it? Stroustrup could have called it anything, but he chose `C++' as the name.
So he makes a language that has syntax strikingly similar to C with a name which was a homage to the old language (one part `C' and one part `a C operator'), then calls people who lump them together as similar languages "ignorant."
Please!
--
I just did a search for 'fire techno' and got a list of songs most of which had the word 'fire' in their title. (I suppose they must have been of the techno genre.) Nothing by Chris Johnson.
--
Really? Name a couple. Let's see if we can find them by searching for them by name.
--