Ok, in that case the command you were looking for is command-shift-3. Albeit alt-printscreen would be easier, but when the command was originaly put in, macs did not use extended keyboards..
Primary method: Click and hold on the edit menu, while still holding the mouse button, select the option "select all", release mouse button. Go back to the edit menu, select copy, release button.
Secondary method: While holding the command key, press and release the "a" key. Press and release the "c" key.
You'd be suprised about the left and right click business. It's not so much a matter of no tknowing their left from their right, but a matter of adding that into the thought process in getting the computer to do what they want. Ever watch unskilled computer users try to get things done? It takes them forever and a day to do some of the simplest tasks. It's not because they're dumb, but it's because for them, the computer is not a natural environment. To us, icons, buttons, tabs, controls, mice, all these things are natural to us, they make sense because we have used them for so long. But to everyone else, they have to sit there and plan out all the steps they need to take to do something. It just isn't natural for them.
I think the main issue that he's trying to get at here is, despite it's short commings, proprietary systems have one thing that OSS for the most part does not. A simple all in one package. The solutions you're providing are workarrounds and more effort than is required to just install the original application natively.
As techies, we often forget that the end users, the ones we are trying to educate and free, are lazy people. They have no desire to install an OS, install a work arround and then install the application and hope and pray that it works. They would rather take the easy way out. It's the same argument that was used often against macs, they didn't have the software people wanted in a commercial easy to find form.
Let me try to put it into another analogy. You have 2 cars. In one, the engine uses completely standard parts, runs as well or better than any other engine out there, and can be serviced by any person who takes the time to sit down with the included manual and read it. The only downside to this engine is that in order to start it, you need to turn a crank to build a charge in the battery, you need to prime the engine and then you need you pull the rip cord to get it started. Once it's started it runs beautifuly though.
The second car uses completely proprietary parts and if anything ever goes wrong, it has to be taken into the shop and serviced by trained professionals. Yet to get this engine going, all you need to do is insert the key and twist.
People into machines and the nuts and bolts of how things work will choose the car with the first engine a proclaim it's superiority from the tops of mountains. But, everyone else, the people that just want to get from point A to point B will choose the card with the second engine. Because to them, the amount of freedom they gain from having engine 1 does not outweigh the added hassle. ANd so it will be with OSS. Untill the hassle of using the software is insignificant compared to freedom, the people will not care. It's sad, it hurts some people in the long run, but unfortunately it's life.
Fun? Entertainment? Getting your message out? Self expression? Some how I doubt musicians started out with the idea that they were going to turn into multi million dollar stars. There are plenty of local and independent groups all across the country that perform in night clubs and bars. They do street performances, give lessons etc etc etc. They do not make millions from selling CDs, yet for some reason, they keep making music.
"Warning! The CD-ROM which you have inserted is protected by a DRM protection scheme. While the disk will still play on this computer, you will not be able to do anything else with it. Apple recomends the use of non DRM products for the best user experience."
I've been using Open Office for a while now and it's great. Not quite as polished as commercial apps but certainly nothing to laugh at.
The only problem I've experienced so far is that after a certain size (haven't quite narrowed it down yet) Open Office refuses to open a file. This isn't any wierd file, just a simple plaintext file, yet for some reason Open Office won't open it. It opens fine under other programs, but not OO. Has anyone else come across this problem or does anyone know how to fix it?
It doesn't have to. The constitution is termed the supreme law of the land (the land in this case reffering to the US). The constitution is just that, it's a collection of laws, enforceable by the government which it creates. Our laws, as people here keep saying, don't apply in other countries. This therefore works two ways. We can't persecute you in another country under our laws, but you can't claim protection in another country under our laws.
I didn't say this was right or wrong, I just said that's the way it is.
And that's as it should be. The courts in the US are for dealing with US laws. Under US laws, what the FBI did was fine, therefore, from the court's standpoint, the case is closed. If you want to argue the diplomatic and international laws, well then you have to take it up with the diplomats.
In a world increasingly networked together, boundries and laws blur together into a rather ugly mess. Perhaps it is time for a world government. Unfortunately, there is far too much difficulty in establishing one. First and foremost, what structure should it take? Do we allow countries to exist with their own governments and each vote on a world leader? Do we try to combine countries into the same structure as the US, and have a world government divided into 3 branches, with the countries acting as "states". Or perhpas we should impliment a Parliment system like the UK.
Then there's the issues of enforcement, election (or succesion), new laws, old laws, location, power of each participating country, and what to do if a country doesn't want in. The UN was supposed to be a step in this direction, but as we can see, it's fairly weak when it comes to cooperation to get something done.
He also added privacy rights contained within the Fourth Amendment do not extend to individuals or property located outside the US.
In a wierd and twisted way this makes sense. The BIll of Rights (and the constitution as a whole) technicaly only applies to american citizens or those people that are permitted as gueats in this country. Of course, by sticking strictly to that definition, we sort of kill all credability to our "Freedom and justice for all" slogan.
But if we just kill the terrorists, then we have no one to supplie the weapons too, problem solved. You need to follow the "logic" full circle to get it.
My guess would be that we can't get the name because Verizon isn't giving it out. If they did, the RIAA could just as easily go after the user instead of Verizon.
What's really funny is that you notonly take the time to write these posts, you make sure you can find them later by putting jumbles like tsarkon in the subject. You must really enjoy reading your shit over and over again. We should all bow before your 1337 skilz
I'm not saying I would take it to court, I was just curious as to the situation. The person I was replying to had said that slander and libel to be
accusing him of committing criminal sexual conduct with a minor... Accusing someone of a criminal charge falsely (even if in jest) is considered slander... Slander, or oral defamation, occurs when a statement is uttered to a third party which is false and malicious. Some statements are considered so offensive that malice is implied and need not be affirmatively shown. Statements in this category include imputing to another person a crime punishable by law, or making charges against another in reference to that person's trade, office or profession which are likely to injure that person in his or her business. The crime need not be a felony; it is sufficient that a person has been accused of being guilty of a misdemeanor. Statements in the categories discussed in this paragraph do not require proof of actual damages either, contrary to most civil claims for money damages. The reason for this rule is that damage to a claimant's reputation can be presumed when the statement is sufficiently offensive, and also because reputation damages are difficult to prove.
Now if you actualy read the post which I linked you would find it met all those requirements. I was curious about the situation. That does not imply that I was ever intending to go through with the situation. There is a reason that there are laws against crimes, stalking and the like, it's so that the excuse "If you don't like it, don't go there" isn't used. If you don't like getting hit by drunk drivers, don't go outside. If you don't like stalkers, dont' get a phone, don't get a computer, don't get a mail box. If you don't like the government, move. Now think about that and ask yourself why we have laws in place.
And you want to talk about rights, let's talk about my rights. My right to free speech. Does this moron's right to the same take away my right or limit my right? If to get away from him I have to change my name, post in a way that I don't want to post, or not come to the message boards at all, isn't that restricting my right to speech? What about my right to be secure in my person as granted to me by the 4th amendment? Or does that only apply to government agencies, in which case I then assume that theft is legal. Or what about the 9th amendment, which talks about what I was saying before, your rights can not infringe upon my rights.
Free speech is not absolute. The supreme court has held up laws banning the use of swears and "fighting words" in public. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire . They also say that Obscene Material does not qualify for free speech protection.
US Supreme Court Definition of "Obscene Material"
a) depicts sexual or excretory acts listed in state obscenity statute,
b) depicts those acts in a "patently offensive" manner, appealing to the "prurient interest," as judged by a reasonable person applying the standards of the community, and
c) lacks "serious" literary, artistic, social, political, or scientific value.
Again, I never stated I had an interest in taking this to court. I was just interested in the possibilities it entails. As the internet grows larger, this is going to become a big issue. So far, the supreme court has stayed away from it, but soon we may not be so lucky.
As for the other person who commented on me having my name as public information. Yeah so what? Does that make stalking someone just because their name is in the phone book legal? Does it make it legal to stalk and harrass them because they frequent a public place?
Just a question because I'm curious. Does that mean I can bring the moron (who will reply to this message at some point with a load of bull shit) to court for slander as well? Even if his reply to this one doesn't have slander, there are plenty of others I could reference you too.
Because of course people are holding a gun to your head to force you to come here, take the time to look up my name, take the time to find my comments, and then take the time to reply. Yes, my self and my hoards of evil mind control spies are forcing you to do this.
And by your post, I can take it to mean that any distro of linux that doesn't require you to recompile the kernel at least 3 times before the GUI starts working is fo average lazy zealots that don't know anything? Tell that to the RedHat people. Tell that to the SuSE people. Tell that to the QNX people (not real Linux, but same idea). The goal of computers is to make our world easier. Part of that means that it should be easy to put something on the computer. Linux will not gain consumer market share untill it becomes easier to install and add programs. Tinkering is not something that should be required in a computer. It should be something you can do if you so choose, but it should not be required. You never even read my post, or you would have found that I did get it to run. But the GUI made it unstable. It's not my fault Linux couldn't handle the hardware.
You try to get MkLinux running on a 5400/180, with a G3 upgrade card and installing it to an external SCSI removable drive. Factor in downloading it via a 33.6 modem through an AOL connection, installing it on unsupported hardware and not being able to get the CD ROM drive to mount and you will find that Linux is indeed more trouble than it was worth. On the other hand, OS 9 installed without a hitch. OS X will not run on the machine, nor do I have the patience to make it run on it. However, OS X does install flawlessly on my iBook and runs without any of the problems I experienced in getting MkLinux to run. And by the way, I did get Mk to run, however, once the GUI was loaded it became so unstable, that something as simple as changing settings could cause a kernel panic. To linux's credit however, it was the only OS (Mac OS 9, Windows 98 both tried) which would recognize and format the WesternDigital HD which was eventualy dropped into the 5400
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about the 70's but the 80's (C64!!) had Mario Bros and pacman on the PC
Ok, in that case the command you were looking for is command-shift-3. Albeit alt-printscreen would be easier, but when the command was originaly put in, macs did not use extended keyboards..
copy current window to clipboard
Primary method:
Click and hold on the edit menu, while still holding the mouse button, select the option "select all", release mouse button. Go back to the edit menu, select copy, release button.
Secondary method: While holding the command key, press and release the "a" key. Press and release the "c" key.
You'd be suprised about the left and right click business. It's not so much a matter of no tknowing their left from their right, but a matter of adding that into the thought process in getting the computer to do what they want. Ever watch unskilled computer users try to get things done? It takes them forever and a day to do some of the simplest tasks. It's not because they're dumb, but it's because for them, the computer is not a natural environment. To us, icons, buttons, tabs, controls, mice, all these things are natural to us, they make sense because we have used them for so long. But to everyone else, they have to sit there and plan out all the steps they need to take to do something. It just isn't natural for them.
I think the main issue that he's trying to get at here is, despite it's short commings, proprietary systems have one thing that OSS for the most part does not. A simple all in one package. The solutions you're providing are workarrounds and more effort than is required to just install the original application natively.
As techies, we often forget that the end users, the ones we are trying to educate and free, are lazy people. They have no desire to install an OS, install a work arround and then install the application and hope and pray that it works. They would rather take the easy way out. It's the same argument that was used often against macs, they didn't have the software people wanted in a commercial easy to find form.
Let me try to put it into another analogy. You have 2 cars. In one, the engine uses completely standard parts, runs as well or better than any other engine out there, and can be serviced by any person who takes the time to sit down with the included manual and read it. The only downside to this engine is that in order to start it, you need to turn a crank to build a charge in the battery, you need to prime the engine and then you need you pull the rip cord to get it started. Once it's started it runs beautifuly though.
The second car uses completely proprietary parts and if anything ever goes wrong, it has to be taken into the shop and serviced by trained professionals. Yet to get this engine going, all you need to do is insert the key and twist.
People into machines and the nuts and bolts of how things work will choose the car with the first engine a proclaim it's superiority from the tops of mountains. But, everyone else, the people that just want to get from point A to point B will choose the card with the second engine. Because to them, the amount of freedom they gain from having engine 1 does not outweigh the added hassle. ANd so it will be with OSS. Untill the hassle of using the software is insignificant compared to freedom, the people will not care. It's sad, it hurts some people in the long run, but unfortunately it's life.
The greatest question ever asked by clippy
(with apologies to kordy)
I wonder if this would violate ebay's rules against biological items or not.
Fun? Entertainment? Getting your message out? Self expression? Some how I doubt musicians started out with the idea that they were going to turn into multi million dollar stars. There are plenty of local and independent groups all across the country that perform in night clubs and bars. They do street performances, give lessons etc etc etc. They do not make millions from selling CDs, yet for some reason, they keep making music.
Or you may see something like:
"Warning! The CD-ROM which you have inserted is protected by a DRM protection scheme. While the disk will still play on this computer, you will not be able to do anything else with it. Apple recomends the use of non DRM products for the best user experience."
I've been using Open Office for a while now and it's great. Not quite as polished as commercial apps but certainly nothing to laugh at.
The only problem I've experienced so far is that after a certain size (haven't quite narrowed it down yet) Open Office refuses to open a file. This isn't any wierd file, just a simple plaintext file, yet for some reason Open Office won't open it. It opens fine under other programs, but not OO. Has anyone else come across this problem or does anyone know how to fix it?
It doesn't have to. The constitution is termed the supreme law of the land (the land in this case reffering to the US). The constitution is just that, it's a collection of laws, enforceable by the government which it creates. Our laws, as people here keep saying, don't apply in other countries. This therefore works two ways. We can't persecute you in another country under our laws, but you can't claim protection in another country under our laws.
I didn't say this was right or wrong, I just said that's the way it is.
And that's as it should be. The courts in the US are for dealing with US laws. Under US laws, what the FBI did was fine, therefore, from the court's standpoint, the case is closed. If you want to argue the diplomatic and international laws, well then you have to take it up with the diplomats.
In a world increasingly networked together, boundries and laws blur together into a rather ugly mess. Perhaps it is time for a world government. Unfortunately, there is far too much difficulty in establishing one. First and foremost, what structure should it take? Do we allow countries to exist with their own governments and each vote on a world leader? Do we try to combine countries into the same structure as the US, and have a world government divided into 3 branches, with the countries acting as "states". Or perhpas we should impliment a Parliment system like the UK.
Then there's the issues of enforcement, election (or succesion), new laws, old laws, location, power of each participating country, and what to do if a country doesn't want in. The UN was supposed to be a step in this direction, but as we can see, it's fairly weak when it comes to cooperation to get something done.
He also added privacy rights contained within the Fourth Amendment do not extend to individuals or property located outside the US.
In a wierd and twisted way this makes sense. The BIll of Rights (and the constitution as a whole) technicaly only applies to american citizens or those people that are permitted as gueats in this country. Of course, by sticking strictly to that definition, we sort of kill all credability to our "Freedom and justice for all" slogan.
But if we just kill the terrorists, then we have no one to supplie the weapons too, problem solved. You need to follow the "logic" full circle to get it.
My guess would be that we can't get the name because Verizon isn't giving it out. If they did, the RIAA could just as easily go after the user instead of Verizon.
What's really funny is that you notonly take the time to write these posts, you make sure you can find them later by putting jumbles like tsarkon in the subject. You must really enjoy reading your shit over and over again. We should all bow before your 1337 skilz
Now if you actualy read the post which I linked you would find it met all those requirements. I was curious about the situation. That does not imply that I was ever intending to go through with the situation. There is a reason that there are laws against crimes, stalking and the like, it's so that the excuse "If you don't like it, don't go there" isn't used. If you don't like getting hit by drunk drivers, don't go outside. If you don't like stalkers, dont' get a phone, don't get a computer, don't get a mail box. If you don't like the government, move. Now think about that and ask yourself why we have laws in place.
And you want to talk about rights, let's talk about my rights. My right to free speech. Does this moron's right to the same take away my right or limit my right? If to get away from him I have to change my name, post in a way that I don't want to post, or not come to the message boards at all, isn't that restricting my right to speech? What about my right to be secure in my person as granted to me by the 4th amendment? Or does that only apply to government agencies, in which case I then assume that theft is legal. Or what about the 9th amendment, which talks about what I was saying before, your rights can not infringe upon my rights.
Free speech is not absolute. The supreme court has held up laws banning the use of swears and "fighting words" in public. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire . They also say that Obscene Material does not qualify for free speech protection.
Again, I never stated I had an interest in taking this to court. I was just interested in the possibilities it entails. As the internet grows larger, this is going to become a big issue. So far, the supreme court has stayed away from it, but soon we may not be so lucky.
You try to convice me that this is fair use. Not to mention that this person is also considered a stalker because he continuously makes unwanted harrassing and sometimes threatening comments on a daily basis.
Would this qualify?
As for the other person who commented on me having my name as public information. Yeah so what? Does that make stalking someone just because their name is in the phone book legal? Does it make it legal to stalk and harrass them because they frequent a public place?
Just a question because I'm curious. Does that mean I can bring the moron (who will reply to this message at some point with a load of bull shit) to court for slander as well? Even if his reply to this one doesn't have slander, there are plenty of others I could reference you too.
Now you've done it, he's going to stalk you arround slashdot like he stalks me.
Now you've done it. He's going to stalk you all over slashdot like he stalks me.
Because of course people are holding a gun to your head to force you to come here, take the time to look up my name, take the time to find my comments, and then take the time to reply. Yes, my self and my hoards of evil mind control spies are forcing you to do this.
And by your post, I can take it to mean that any distro of linux that doesn't require you to recompile the kernel at least 3 times before the GUI starts working is fo average lazy zealots that don't know anything? Tell that to the RedHat people. Tell that to the SuSE people. Tell that to the QNX people (not real Linux, but same idea). The goal of computers is to make our world easier. Part of that means that it should be easy to put something on the computer. Linux will not gain consumer market share untill it becomes easier to install and add programs. Tinkering is not something that should be required in a computer. It should be something you can do if you so choose, but it should not be required. You never even read my post, or you would have found that I did get it to run. But the GUI made it unstable. It's not my fault Linux couldn't handle the hardware.
You try to get MkLinux running on a 5400/180, with a G3 upgrade card and installing it to an external SCSI removable drive. Factor in downloading it via a 33.6 modem through an AOL connection, installing it on unsupported hardware and not being able to get the CD ROM drive to mount and you will find that Linux is indeed more trouble than it was worth. On the other hand, OS 9 installed without a hitch. OS X will not run on the machine, nor do I have the patience to make it run on it. However, OS X does install flawlessly on my iBook and runs without any of the problems I experienced in getting MkLinux to run. And by the way, I did get Mk to run, however, once the GUI was loaded it became so unstable, that something as simple as changing settings could cause a kernel panic. To linux's credit however, it was the only OS (Mac OS 9, Windows 98 both tried) which would recognize and format the WesternDigital HD which was eventualy dropped into the 5400