No, we want the dev team to go around their product and figure out how it can screw up, then make sure there is an easy and helpful error message that will pop up if it screws up that way that tells you how to fix it.
The problem with Linux devs is the mantra is "RTFM" which is all well and good if you are dealing with someone who cares. If we want to WIN users though, the mantra needs to be "JFW", because thats what users want. They want to be able to tell their desktop to Just Fucking Work. Tweaks and power toys are great, but you shouldn't be forced to use them. Hell, Mandrake should consider giving their users a sandbox mode where they just guess what you want and not worry about efficiency at all. The average user makes his computer faster by buying another one, NOT recompiling modules.
Why would it annoy? SPAM is annoying because it's for products that you don't want, that you have no interest in.
I'd have though popping up a coupon for me for a product that's in the aisle I'm already in would be a GOOD thing.
Pet peeve of mine, but I had to click through to the contact page to find out where your theatre is. Maybe you should move that information to a more prominent location.
Besides, compared to the bleeding hearts in our justice system, "overseas" is often where you WANT to see them persecuted. Lets all just take a moment to pray they are in Singapore...
I do agree with you in parts, but I'm still not so sure it's as clear cut as you imply.
Certainly Amendment X is the same people, as well as the first amendment. It still does, though, imply the right to assemble individually is inherent to the people as a whole.
Again, in IV it begins with the right of the people as a whole, but then specifies their personal rights.
IX is probably your strongest arguement along those lines, not for definitional purposes of the people, but because it clearly states that any rights they already had shouldn't be taken just because they aren't listed in the Bill of Rights. Then the question becomes did they already have the right to own weapons. Well, no, that's why they put it in the bill of rights, because as colonies they hadn't had that right, which pushes us back to the original question.
I'm not argueing people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, I'm just arguing that the the second amendment doesn't have to be horribly twisted for a reasonable person to say that maybe that wasn't quite the right they were affirming, rather they were affirming the right of the people to have a standing army.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Only willful misreading could get such a meaning out of the 2nd Amendment.
the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'
I'm not sure how deliberate your misreading needs to be. The only real problem is how you reconcile the first part of the sentence with the last, and I don't think the confusing word is well-regulated, or even arms. I think the word you'd have to interpret is "people". I think I'm fairly safe in saying that "the people" in the Constitution is often referring to the country as a whole, not individual citizens.
Consider Amendment V - No person or Amendment VI - the accused. Each time they didn't use a generic "people" because they were giving specific rights to specific people. However, notice Amendment X. Here there are clearly three general layers of government: Federal, States, and "The People".
No body argues that "The People" of the United States should be allowed to own guns, but the amendment doesn't have to be contorted to say that INDIVIDUALS aren't necessarily uniformly given that right.
Do you also believe your local library should stock Playboy on the shelves with Popular Science?
I don't think there is a valid arguement that justify having a system with no filtering at all. If you want to argue you should be able to verify your age to a librarian to have controls removed, fine. That still doesn't change the fact that a library has no business placing pornography within easy access to children.
I'm perfectly willing to say the way it's done probably should be adjusted to take into account the rights of adult. It's not even LEGAL for you to show those sites to your own children, so how can you justify a library doing it for you?
Speaking as a junior high teacher, I can safely say it creates an UPROAR when I sent kids to the Onion and they HAPPENED to have an advertisement with a woman in lingerie. I can't control what advertisements show up, and I'd love to have those filtered out for me, even if they site they show up on is perfectly reasonable to go to.
If by that you mean smart enough to make his money of advertising and making his own record label instead of getting shafted by a different one, I agree entirely.
I'm not real shocked most musicians have a terrible head for business. Isn't that why they are musicians?
It doesn't hurt to ask. He'd, of course, avoid answering any direct questions that would cause a conflict of interest, but basic questions about technology interests in the courtroom would be both interesting and free of tampering charges.
There are 14 registered and 8698 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 2408.61 kbit/s
Wonder what the odds are in Vegas right now...
Re:Not to worry you or anything, but...
on
Watching You
·
· Score: 1
/sigh
It's an article on surveillance. The joke is that he's already being so carefully watched that he doesn't need to tell us he received his magazine today. It's a funny joke. Laugh.
Also, change your shirt, you spilled a little coffee on that one, and we don't like pastels anyway.
We don't all agree with you about the concept of "good beer". My general impression is that "good beer" tastes mostly like what I'd expect a burning grain silo to taste like.
April fools in October feeling?
Slashdot poll:
Initial reaction to SunnComm's suit:
1) You've got to be fucking kidding me?
2) You've got to be fucking kidding me?
3) You've got to be fucking kidding me?
4) You've got to be fucking kidding me?
5) Cowbody Neal has got to be fucking kidding me?!
Slashdot Mirror
You must be sleeping, that IS the parent.
No, we want the dev team to go around their product and figure out how it can screw up, then make sure there is an easy and helpful error message that will pop up if it screws up that way that tells you how to fix it.
The problem with Linux devs is the mantra is "RTFM" which is all well and good if you are dealing with someone who cares. If we want to WIN users though, the mantra needs to be "JFW", because thats what users want. They want to be able to tell their desktop to Just Fucking Work. Tweaks and power toys are great, but you shouldn't be forced to use them. Hell, Mandrake should consider giving their users a sandbox mode where they just guess what you want and not worry about efficiency at all. The average user makes his computer faster by buying another one, NOT recompiling modules.
Why would it annoy? SPAM is annoying because it's for products that you don't want, that you have no interest in. I'd have though popping up a coupon for me for a product that's in the aisle I'm already in would be a GOOD thing.
Pet peeve of mine, but I had to click through to the contact page to find out where your theatre is. Maybe you should move that information to a more prominent location.
Besides, compared to the bleeding hearts in our justice system, "overseas" is often where you WANT to see them persecuted. Lets all just take a moment to pray they are in Singapore...
I do agree with you in parts, but I'm still not so sure it's as clear cut as you imply. Certainly Amendment X is the same people, as well as the first amendment. It still does, though, imply the right to assemble individually is inherent to the people as a whole. Again, in IV it begins with the right of the people as a whole, but then specifies their personal rights. IX is probably your strongest arguement along those lines, not for definitional purposes of the people, but because it clearly states that any rights they already had shouldn't be taken just because they aren't listed in the Bill of Rights. Then the question becomes did they already have the right to own weapons. Well, no, that's why they put it in the bill of rights, because as colonies they hadn't had that right, which pushes us back to the original question. I'm not argueing people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, I'm just arguing that the the second amendment doesn't have to be horribly twisted for a reasonable person to say that maybe that wasn't quite the right they were affirming, rather they were affirming the right of the people to have a standing army.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Only willful misreading could get such a meaning out of the 2nd Amendment.
the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'
I'm not sure how deliberate your misreading needs to be. The only real problem is how you reconcile the first part of the sentence with the last, and I don't think the confusing word is well-regulated, or even arms. I think the word you'd have to interpret is "people". I think I'm fairly safe in saying that "the people" in the Constitution is often referring to the country as a whole, not individual citizens.
Consider Amendment V - No person or Amendment VI - the accused. Each time they didn't use a generic "people" because they were giving specific rights to specific people. However, notice Amendment X. Here there are clearly three general layers of government: Federal, States, and "The People".
No body argues that "The People" of the United States should be allowed to own guns, but the amendment doesn't have to be contorted to say that INDIVIDUALS aren't necessarily uniformly given that right.
Do you also believe your local library should stock Playboy on the shelves with Popular Science?
I don't think there is a valid arguement that justify having a system with no filtering at all. If you want to argue you should be able to verify your age to a librarian to have controls removed, fine. That still doesn't change the fact that a library has no business placing pornography within easy access to children.
I'm perfectly willing to say the way it's done probably should be adjusted to take into account the rights of adult. It's not even LEGAL for you to show those sites to your own children, so how can you justify a library doing it for you?
Speaking as a junior high teacher, I can safely say it creates an UPROAR when I sent kids to the Onion and they HAPPENED to have an advertisement with a woman in lingerie. I can't control what advertisements show up, and I'd love to have those filtered out for me, even if they site they show up on is perfectly reasonable to go to.
No, that one would be one more cool Halloween URL.
One more cool Halloween link would be this: Homestar Runner's pumpkin stencils
RIAA artists are not P. Diddy
If by that you mean smart enough to make his money of advertising and making his own record label instead of getting shafted by a different one, I agree entirely.
I'm not real shocked most musicians have a terrible head for business. Isn't that why they are musicians?
Microsoft fired the blogger, despite an offer to take the posting down
And if he doesn't want to take it down, damn it we'll take it down FOR him.
It doesn't hurt to ask. He'd, of course, avoid answering any direct questions that would cause a conflict of interest, but basic questions about technology interests in the courtroom would be both interesting and free of tampering charges.
I think outrage is strong. I just looked through the thread, as he suggested, and only saw one that actually existed.
some of the URLs
and by some, you mean one right?
Perhaps that was the test case the script was SUPPOSED to fix?
I'd have to look to find it, but the magic number in the survey was substantial, something on the order of 10k in salary against a week of vacation.
There are 14 registered and 8698 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 2408.61 kbit/s
Wonder what the odds are in Vegas right now...
/sigh
It's an article on surveillance. The joke is that he's already being so carefully watched that he doesn't need to tell us he received his magazine today. It's a funny joke. Laugh.
Also, change your shirt, you spilled a little coffee on that one, and we don't like pastels anyway.
Near as I can tell, you lost those little bubbles that pop up off the service tray that say something like:
Want to sign up for MSN? Huh? Huh? Do ya? Click here!
That would be more likely to get YOU into trouble for fraud, bad faith contract negotiations or something like that.
We don't all agree with you about the concept of "good beer". My general impression is that "good beer" tastes mostly like what I'd expect a burning grain silo to taste like.
Perhaps he's implying they have enormous microwaves that bake the whole womb.
April fools in October feeling? Slashdot poll: Initial reaction to SunnComm's suit: 1) You've got to be fucking kidding me? 2) You've got to be fucking kidding me? 3) You've got to be fucking kidding me? 4) You've got to be fucking kidding me? 5) Cowbody Neal has got to be fucking kidding me?!
Lets be honest about this, you (universal) wouldn't believe them if you did...
Not mention AOL has done this since, what, version 7?
That person should probably not have been hired in the first place
Or, more likely, fired.