Remember, democracy is an experiment. If you're implying people are too stupid or lazy (I'm not trying to pick a fight) I think it would make more sense to wait and see. Perhaps more involvement in the political process will reinvigorate the apathetic and encourage voter turn out. Maybe people will feel not only responsible but empowered.
Nice try. Everything effects me. I'm destined to become old and infirm and there are not guarantees of health in the interim. But keep this in perspective. I won't cry if I found problems with the Target website, I will use and support one which supports me and I'll encourage my friends and family to do so. The state isn't here to dictate my conscience. And that's what I see we are losing when when we confuse rights with right. We end up with words, outrage without action and worse of all, complacence.
And I bet your white, speaking up for the 'little' people eh? I'd say sure. Open a fucking racist restaurant. I won't go there, my friends won't go there, I won't shed a tear if the owners are harassed or otherwise have problems with business. But I don't feel obligated to run around like some moral fucking nanny. Look around you. Your not making the world a better place. Maybe it's time we stop worrying about all these little details that sap so much of our focus and actually, I don't know...do something of value. I think we've lost our social cohesiveness in a reactionary sea of self-righteousness. And *that's* dangerous. The new immorality is indifference. Because we change things not because we care. Not because it impacts us. But simply because we believe that we should. We are good because we have to be, or we feel we should be. But we should want to be and you'll never get that if you allow a society to sleep-walk nearly catatonic and high on their own sense of self-righteousness.
You might not like the way I'm expressing my opinion, but it's an opinion. That's something distinctly different then trolling and using the moderation system to quell opinion in contrast to that of your own is, aside from an idiotic form of censorship, anti-dialog. And as such instead of conversation you encourage this mass enfeebling, where dialog is constantly shifted and filtered to reflect your own ideals. The world regurgitated to you. Keep up the good work.
I'm getting more and more tired of both the liberals and the neo/publicans and all their fucking bullshit. What ever happened to that free market shit we were fed along with the 'land of the free' garbage? If you don't like something vote with your wallet. Don't fucking sue everything that makes your life a little more difficult. No-one *has* to use Target. No-one has to use a website they don't like. I think it's fucking lazy and shows this stupid sense of entitlement we seem to feel. Instead of supporting something better we try to coerce it into being the way we'd like. How fucked up is that? That's the kind of shit you do with your government, not your fucking lawn-chair supplier. Meanwhile we stew in a broth of litigious shit as our real freedoms are sold right out from under us.
You're probably right about the size. Maybe PSP sized, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this in devices smaller. Assuming it's as intuitive as it looks it might even still add usability to smaller devices. Overall I like the idea a lot and look forward to seeing how it works out.
They are about 1/2 the length of your hand and useless for tapping data (aside from maybe squeeze). I find myself holding just about anything two handed and I drum my fingers or generally move them around idly. This would let you grip the device while interacting comfortably. But it used a front and rear touch system, so if it did become troubling you could use your thumbs on the front or just one hand it when appropriate and problem solved. I think this a good thing and it should be very intuitive and very flexible. Apple's certainly started the ball rolling.
Actually if you watch the video the demonstrator explains that the camera method is interim, claiming technological limitations. I think this technology would catch on pretty quickly considering we are pretty used to using our hands (..) to manipulate our environment. Watching it makes one think about how inefficient tactile, one-sided input is while your hands essentially fumble around at the back of the device.
I don't know about the Apple patent but I'd be happy to see a technology like this make it into handheld devices where screen space is limited and dragging hands or fingers constantly over your workspace is less then optimal.
Hugely important. I like Canonical's desktop offering a lot but I'm incredibly weary of knocking anything into the racks that doesn't have a hell of a track record and a lead in the enterprise game. This offering might be great in time or for smaller non-mission critical deployments, but nothing else for now.
Lol. Not to mention they show Source games. Even TF2 is still obviously a Source derivative, down to some of the sounds. If the game play wasn't so...playable, I'd think I'd been tricked into playing another round of HL2MP (shudder).
Whoever told Valve games should be fun should get a raise. Maybe next they can do a little less simplifying...
It shows that an experience can be triggered, but going from point A to point B at this point is foolish. The brain is capable of many things and we understand it's complexity very little. Aside from filing under interesting I think it would be ignorant to jump to any other conclusions. We are a long way from that kind of understanding.
This has been driving me crazy for years. Ticket master is as much a ruthless business as the MPAA et al. I just bought tickets to see a show here in San Diego. The tickets are sold via Ticket Master and would have cost TWICE the face value had I bought them through them. Fortunately I knew where to buy them in person directly from the venue (not always an option or encouraged). I have no pity for a company that screws customers. Period.
I'm not a fan of Suse but if you work hard on something and then have to write a announcement I'd say brag too. Of course hands on use and time will tell (I hated the last release). But getting upset because they talk nice seems kind of silly.
Believing that the GPL license means open in the way you seem to understand it is not in the letter or the spirit of the GPL license. The GPL is an aggressive license. Somehow a lot of OSS people (...) seem to get the idea that open is open (is open is open, etc). That's not the case. If we just wanted to remove limits on software we'd be better off with a permissive license, like the BSD. But what we want is to insist the body of our work is open (which includes modification to original BSD work), now and for future generations. Legally. Forever. You miss that. BSD'ing code developed by GPL programmers would inherently go against the 'open' nature of our license. The only reason the BSD and the GPL are compatible is because the BSD *is* permissively open, it doesn't work both ways. Getting bent out of shape about the work the GPL community does without giving back is tantamount to disavowing the very spirit of your own license. Which is kind of funny and highly hypocritical. Take issue with Microsoft first or any other developer that uses BSD code in closed projects. Then anyone else who benefits from the code. Point fingers, name-call. But then ask yourself if you really want your work to be open. Because effectively the GPL community, like the BSD community, is doing very good work. Everyone benefits in some way, but it's not always going to be in code is it? If we gave that all back we'd be doing the very thing the GPL was created to protect against, giving code away that can then be kept from us.
We all chose licenses for a reason. The motivation for the BSD is pretty clear: credit where due and open. I respect that. But when I release code I've developed myself I want something more, I want to insist that my code be shared and modified and I feel so strongly that I'm willing to use a license to restrict anything else.
Ironically the solution to this sense of double standard some people have been voicing in the BSD community is a less permissive license. Something open, but that restricts derivative works and subsequent licensing. Which sounds a lot more like the GPL to me.
Slashdot Mirror
The ones that aren't transcend the buzz with the passage of time. But I hear you, it can be painful.
It'll be funny when we're the generation saying "back in my day". All freedoms have a price and the market is open.
And it was obeying commands perfectly.
Good thing they typically yell police. But it's still a stupid prank.
Some basic features and the phone would be good looking and useful. Skype or jabber and aside from AT&T tethering I'm tempted to buy a new phone.
16) Brazilian chicks are hot. Period.
17) There's also some interesting photographers, artist and music. A lot actually.
Remember, democracy is an experiment. If you're implying people are too stupid or lazy (I'm not trying to pick a fight) I think it would make more sense to wait and see. Perhaps more involvement in the political process will reinvigorate the apathetic and encourage voter turn out. Maybe people will feel not only responsible but empowered.
Anyway, it sounds like a noble experiment to me.
Nice try. Everything effects me. I'm destined to become old and infirm and there are not guarantees of health in the interim. But keep this in perspective. I won't cry if I found problems with the Target website, I will use and support one which supports me and I'll encourage my friends and family to do so. The state isn't here to dictate my conscience. And that's what I see we are losing when when we confuse rights with right. We end up with words, outrage without action and worse of all, complacence.
Sure.
And I bet your white, speaking up for the 'little' people eh? I'd say sure. Open a fucking racist restaurant. I won't go there, my friends won't go there, I won't shed a tear if the owners are harassed or otherwise have problems with business. But I don't feel obligated to run around like some moral fucking nanny. Look around you. Your not making the world a better place. Maybe it's time we stop worrying about all these little details that sap so much of our focus and actually, I don't know...do something of value. I think we've lost our social cohesiveness in a reactionary sea of self-righteousness. And *that's* dangerous. The new immorality is indifference. Because we change things not because we care. Not because it impacts us. But simply because we believe that we should. We are good because we have to be, or we feel we should be. But we should want to be and you'll never get that if you allow a society to sleep-walk nearly catatonic and high on their own sense of self-righteousness.
You might not like the way I'm expressing my opinion, but it's an opinion. That's something distinctly different then trolling and using the moderation system to quell opinion in contrast to that of your own is, aside from an idiotic form of censorship, anti-dialog. And as such instead of conversation you encourage this mass enfeebling, where dialog is constantly shifted and filtered to reflect your own ideals. The world regurgitated to you. Keep up the good work.
I'm getting more and more tired of both the liberals and the neo/publicans and all their fucking bullshit. What ever happened to that free market shit we were fed along with the 'land of the free' garbage? If you don't like something vote with your wallet. Don't fucking sue everything that makes your life a little more difficult. No-one *has* to use Target. No-one has to use a website they don't like. I think it's fucking lazy and shows this stupid sense of entitlement we seem to feel. Instead of supporting something better we try to coerce it into being the way we'd like. How fucked up is that? That's the kind of shit you do with your government, not your fucking lawn-chair supplier. Meanwhile we stew in a broth of litigious shit as our real freedoms are sold right out from under us.
You're probably right about the size. Maybe PSP sized, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this in devices smaller. Assuming it's as intuitive as it looks it might even still add usability to smaller devices. Overall I like the idea a lot and look forward to seeing how it works out.
They are about 1/2 the length of your hand and useless for tapping data (aside from maybe squeeze). I find myself holding just about anything two handed and I drum my fingers or generally move them around idly. This would let you grip the device while interacting comfortably. But it used a front and rear touch system, so if it did become troubling you could use your thumbs on the front or just one hand it when appropriate and problem solved. I think this a good thing and it should be very intuitive and very flexible. Apple's certainly started the ball rolling.
Actually if you watch the video the demonstrator explains that the camera method is interim, claiming technological limitations. I think this technology would catch on pretty quickly considering we are pretty used to using our hands (..) to manipulate our environment. Watching it makes one think about how inefficient tactile, one-sided input is while your hands essentially fumble around at the back of the device.
I don't know about the Apple patent but I'd be happy to see a technology like this make it into handheld devices where screen space is limited and dragging hands or fingers constantly over your workspace is less then optimal.
Hugely important. I like Canonical's desktop offering a lot but I'm incredibly weary of knocking anything into the racks that doesn't have a hell of a track record and a lead in the enterprise game. This offering might be great in time or for smaller non-mission critical deployments, but nothing else for now.
If OJ was innocent I celebrate him. Problem is that case was much more thorny and he had a good lawyer.
In this particular case I wouldn't hold any of them up.
Lol. Not to mention they show Source games. Even TF2 is still obviously a Source derivative, down to some of the sounds. If the game play wasn't so...playable, I'd think I'd been tricked into playing another round of HL2MP (shudder).
Whoever told Valve games should be fun should get a raise. Maybe next they can do a little less simplifying...
It shows that an experience can be triggered, but going from point A to point B at this point is foolish. The brain is capable of many things and we understand it's complexity very little. Aside from filing under interesting I think it would be ignorant to jump to any other conclusions. We are a long way from that kind of understanding.
This has been driving me crazy for years. Ticket master is as much a ruthless business as the MPAA et al. I just bought tickets to see a show here in San Diego. The tickets are sold via Ticket Master and would have cost TWICE the face value had I bought them through them. Fortunately I knew where to buy them in person directly from the venue (not always an option or encouraged). I have no pity for a company that screws customers. Period.
I'm not a fan of Suse but if you work hard on something and then have to write a announcement I'd say brag too. Of course hands on use and time will tell (I hated the last release). But getting upset because they talk nice seems kind of silly.
Because chick *always* check out your audio cables...
Believing that the GPL license means open in the way you seem to understand it is not in the letter or the spirit of the GPL license. The GPL is an aggressive license. Somehow a lot of OSS people (...) seem to get the idea that open is open (is open is open, etc). That's not the case. If we just wanted to remove limits on software we'd be better off with a permissive license, like the BSD. But what we want is to insist the body of our work is open (which includes modification to original BSD work), now and for future generations. Legally. Forever. You miss that. BSD'ing code developed by GPL programmers would inherently go against the 'open' nature of our license. The only reason the BSD and the GPL are compatible is because the BSD *is* permissively open, it doesn't work both ways. Getting bent out of shape about the work the GPL community does without giving back is tantamount to disavowing the very spirit of your own license. Which is kind of funny and highly hypocritical. Take issue with Microsoft first or any other developer that uses BSD code in closed projects. Then anyone else who benefits from the code. Point fingers, name-call. But then ask yourself if you really want your work to be open. Because effectively the GPL community, like the BSD community, is doing very good work. Everyone benefits in some way, but it's not always going to be in code is it? If we gave that all back we'd be doing the very thing the GPL was created to protect against, giving code away that can then be kept from us.
We all chose licenses for a reason. The motivation for the BSD is pretty clear: credit where due and open. I respect that. But when I release code I've developed myself I want something more, I want to insist that my code be shared and modified and I feel so strongly that I'm willing to use a license to restrict anything else.
Ironically the solution to this sense of double standard some people have been voicing in the BSD community is a less permissive license. Something open, but that restricts derivative works and subsequent licensing. Which sounds a lot more like the GPL to me.