Nokia has been known for experimenting with open source in the recent years. This surely was a way to test the waters in community-driven development, to learn how to go along and specially what not to do.
How exactly does that let blind people see ? If it doesn't let them enjoy a nice sunset on a whim like the rest of us then they're still not equal.
Oh sure. The only way to have everybody equal would be to clone all the population on Earth from a single stem cell or embryo. Actually that wouldn't work neither, since people would have differences in breeding, uprising, accidents...
You know what? That's not the point.
The point in Egalitarianism, would you bother to learn anything about the things you care to criticize, is in providing a common legal (and functional) framework inside which you are treated the same, no matter how different you are. (This has the problem that the definition of "the same" is sometimes open to interpretation. In origin, it should mean "the exact same rules apply", but that's often subverted).
It's obvious that you don't value that idea in the abstract, but answer this: would you like the judges defending only the property of their friends, or laws stating that some people can own shares, but other people can't?
Of course it's impossible to fit everything inside that common framework, but the intent is to find a well-balanced set that will protect those goods known as 'human rights'.
No, seriously. What do you mean? How is that magical "get out of..." card supposed to work, regardless of the actual situation of the person, or the means set by others to provide help?
Socialists started doing this since even the poorest people alive (in America) in 2007 have better lives, more money, more options, more entertainment than even the president had in 1940.
But when people start equalizing society, I always think of the blind
Funny, I always think of the famous people, and people leading corporations. They have so many contacts and popularity, and are regarded by all as someone special. So, why should we use the same laws for everybody? We could give these people special treatment under the law, since people act as if they're special anyway.
Some people, you see are blind. [...] so how do you create equality ? There is only one option : stick everybody's eyes out. That'd be equal.
Your severe lack of imagination doesn't mean that there is only one option, just that you're unable to think of more than one.
You could, for example, require that all public documents and technology (like, say, the internet) where provided in alternate, accessible media (WAI-validated pages, Braille, audio streams). This way, it really doesn't matter whether you have eyes or not, you can access those documents.
You know, so that everybody could be treatedequal. Which was the whole point, instead of your absurd rambling about "being" equal or "equalizing" people.
I use the search bar for searches. I use the URL bar for URLs.
The search bar is to search the internet. The new URL bar searches URLs. (If you have a whole URL, you can ignore the whole autocomplete feature, anyway).
So, why would I ever type// into that bar without an https: in front of it? So I can fit into Mozillas scheme to capture the Luddites of the world and increase their market share?
Actually yes, since from the beginning the Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox project was started to satisfy those "luddites" in the first place!:-) If you want a Mozilla for the tech people, you'll always have the SeaMonkey;-)
Can anyone suggest how you might go about tweaking the SQL it passes to SQL Lite to only search URLs (not necessarily only typed ones, but not page titles) and without the leading wildcard?
How about prefixing your searches with// as if it were a search keyword? After some uses you'll have this behavior habituated and won't notice it.
An office suite is by nature and definition a rather boring set of tools. Its job is to produce documents or display and manipulate data. Any sort of aggrandizement in the form of a fancy graphical interface adds nothing to its functionality and may even excessively distract or annoy the user. Actually, that's not true. Beautiful things work better, according to one of the bigger experts in the field.
You're not missing much, the Ribbon interface feels mostly like using a website in which the tools were organized in tabs.
The 2007 interface is not that revolutionary as much as it's using a well-studied paradigm (web browsing) in a context (complex desktop applications) where it's traditionally not seen due to inertia, even if it would make sense.
I can't explain why they changed the UI so much for Office 2007.Stuff I've known how to do since the 1980s in Word and Excel are suddenly difficult to do. I assume the functions are still there, I just can't bloody find them.
The interface has been changed so that the people who couldn't find all the options that where hidden in a 2nd-level tab under the 3rd-level menus, now can bloody find them more easily. For the first time and against all MS tradition, they have boldly broken backwards compatibility in introducing this new interface layout, with the rationale that most of those hidden functions were not used by many people to begin with.
Damn you. I've read the Wikipedia's catamorphism page and now I know what it is! (I needed to reach the "a catamorphism is a generalization of the folds on lists known from functional programming to arbitrary abstract data types" phrase to understand what the heck what's going on, though).
Why do you suppose that one man's wii has to be modified in order to procreate? That is only true for a small percent of the population (since having problems to "use" it for sex is pathologic.
But, there is a difference. I didn't kill anyone, and Shew0lf is trying to kill my entire family. See, Shew0lf is committing a crime, murder, an invasion, of sorts. That's today, and you see, the only way he can rationalize it, is by inventing some past ancestor to "even the score".
Suppose instead of killing you, ShieldW0lf would wait after you naturally died, and only then take over your former (now unowned) property. Absolutely no crimes, no violence.
Would you then agree that he has a right to do that? On which base would you either allow or deny it?
So how is your right to enforce your property rights with a gun, any different from ShieldW0lf's claim to take by force the (metaphorical or not) land occupied by others before his birth? Both are based with what you can do by sheer force.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone with mod points left?
How about... today?
For moderators with mod points
Actually, with the "what not to do" I didn't mean favoring DRM, but stating comments that upset the whole tech-savvy open source community.
Nokia has been known for experimenting with open source in the recent years. This surely was a way to test the waters in community-driven development, to learn how to go along and specially what not to do.
This may shock you:
vampires are dead!
Be sure to include the relevant link ;-)
Oh sure. The only way to have everybody equal would be to clone all the population on Earth from a single stem cell or embryo. Actually that wouldn't work neither, since people would have differences in breeding, uprising, accidents...
You know what? That's not the point.
The point in Egalitarianism, would you bother to learn anything about the things you care to criticize, is in providing a common legal (and functional) framework inside which you are treated the same, no matter how different you are. (This has the problem that the definition of "the same" is sometimes open to interpretation. In origin, it should mean "the exact same rules apply", but that's often subverted).
It's obvious that you don't value that idea in the abstract, but answer this: would you like the judges defending only the property of their friends, or laws stating that some people can own shares, but other people can't?
Of course it's impossible to fit everything inside that common framework, but the intent is to find a well-balanced set that will protect those goods known as 'human rights'.
Is that always a mathematical law, or something?
No, seriously. What do you mean? How is that magical "get out of..." card supposed to work, regardless of the actual situation of the person, or the means set by others to provide help?
You mean, like, these people?
Funny, I always think of the famous people, and people leading corporations. They have so many contacts and popularity, and are regarded by all as someone special. So, why should we use the same laws for everybody? We could give these people special treatment under the law, since people act as if they're special anyway.
Your severe lack of imagination doesn't mean that there is only one option, just that you're unable to think of more than one.
You could, for example, require that all public documents and technology (like, say, the internet) where provided in alternate, accessible media (WAI-validated pages, Braille, audio streams). This way, it really doesn't matter whether you have eyes or not, you can access those documents.
You know, so that everybody could be treated equal. Which was the whole point, instead of your absurd rambling about "being" equal or "equalizing" people.
The search bar is to search the internet. The new URL bar searches URLs. (If you have a whole URL, you can ignore the whole autocomplete feature, anyway).
Actually yes, since from the beginning the Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox project was started to satisfy those "luddites" in the first place!
Are there other kinds of coffee??
How about prefixing your searches with
Man, you've been reading Good News for too long.
Its job is to produce documents or display and manipulate data. Any sort
of aggrandizement in the form of a fancy graphical interface adds nothing
to its functionality and may even excessively distract or annoy the user. Actually, that's not true. Beautiful things work better, according to one of the bigger experts in the field.
Actually, the meaning of the number 0 is exactly what the GP said. Are you a liar every time you say 0, just because you're "cheating" at counting?
You're not missing much, the Ribbon interface feels mostly like using a website in which the tools were organized in tabs.
The 2007 interface is not that revolutionary as much as it's using a well-studied paradigm (web browsing) in a context (complex desktop applications) where it's traditionally not seen due to inertia, even if it would make sense.
The interface has been changed so that the people who couldn't find all the options that where hidden in a 2nd-level tab under the 3rd-level menus, now can bloody find them more easily. For the first time and against all MS tradition, they have boldly broken backwards compatibility in introducing this new interface layout, with the rationale that most of those hidden functions were not used by many people to begin with.
Fortunately, you can do that in Python too, if you really need it.
(Unfortunately, none of the available methods have been included in the standard).
Show me a BASIC with generators, high-order functions and list comprehension, and it won't be BASIC anymore.
Python, otoh, has them as basic pythonic facilities.
will freak out in front of those 1,000-Year-Old ancient Viking skeleton overlords!
Damn you. I've read the Wikipedia's catamorphism page and now I know what it is! (I needed to reach the "a catamorphism is a generalization of the folds on lists known from functional programming to arbitrary abstract data types" phrase to understand what the heck what's going on, though).
Why do you suppose that one man's wii has to be modified in order to procreate? That is only true for a small percent of the population (since having problems to "use" it for sex is pathologic.
Suppose instead of killing you, ShieldW0lf would wait after you naturally died, and only then take over your former (now unowned) property. Absolutely no crimes, no violence.
Would you then agree that he has a right to do that? On which base would you either allow or deny it?
So how is your right to enforce your property rights with a gun, any different from ShieldW0lf's claim to take by force the (metaphorical or not) land occupied by others before his birth? Both are based with what you can do by sheer force.