... but I'm having to fight a little too hard to find neat things to do with Bluetooth. I made my laptop connecton the net once with my cell phone... but.. uh yeah.
And we'll just sit still and let it grow out of control...?
It is not my intention to belittle the danger of it, but all the scenarios I've heard so far have been thought out under the assumption that we as a species will just sit on the fence and watch the world fall apart.
"In a world as hyperparanoid as the current one is about weapons of mass destruction you have to wonder about technology that might enable a new class of WMD's when it falls in to malevolent hands, for example terrorists or the U.S. military."
I love this. The US Military hasn't dropped any WMDs in decades, but they're going to be manevolent with the next new batch. I shoud listen to whatever political talk show you are.
"Next thing you know these bastards are going to find a way to stick automated speed traps throughout the state and just mail you a ticket if you're caught speeding. Welcome to John Ashcroft's Amerika. Why not just implant a microchip under our skin and mail us a ticket anytime we do anything wrong?"
They do that to cut down on fatal car accidents at intersections, not to make us happy compliant americans.
Already seen that. When I last used it (It's been a year or so...) it didn't work with every AX control. If they fixed it, great.
"Sorry, if you let your users use insecure software when there are alternatives, you are an incompetent sysadmin."
Uh huh. It couldn't possibly be because there's some stuff only IE can do. No, it's because I'm incompetent.
Listen, jackass, this is not the tone that's going to convince anybody to switch. Listen to yourself. You're not showing me any respect. You're calling me incompetent. You're oversimplifying the problem. And, on top of all that, you're not even TRYING to understand what the problems I have are.
So how am I supposed to respond with anything but an attack back? This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! You guys want to get Mozilla out there? Stop being such assholes about it.
"The typical lame excuses of incorrect rendering or ActiveX or the fact that people can't visit their favorite game sites are all solvable."
Solvable? You mean Mozilla does secretly support ActiveX? If it can, PLEASE tell me how.
In the mean time, no, they are not all solvable. Unless, of course, you can make every plugin company in the world support stuff outside of AX.
Let me be clear about something: Don't call all the sysadmins out there incompetent just because they're using IE. Besides being rude, it's exactly the same attitude that's caused me to ignore Mozilla over the last couple of years. I'm sick of the way it zealously comes across. "I'm an idiot because I'm not a Mozilla fanboy?" That's why I made my parent post. If you really want adoption of Mozilla, don't let ambient arrogance into your posts. Nobody wants to listen to a condescending tone.
"No Seriously why dont they just use disposable lens covers, like they make for motorcycle visors... when it gets covered with crap, just use a little robotic arm or something to remove it."
Why does everybody assume they thought of something that NASA didn't?
Re:Using the right tool for the job
on
OpenGL in PHP
·
· Score: 1
"Using the right tool for the job... Is truly a lost art."
Okay, I'm a Windows user who somehow got a magic computer that runs it just fine. I'm more or less happy. I'm productive. Maintaining it hasn't been a problem. Stability hasn't been a problem. All my software works. I can do my job. Etc. I kind of thought some of you would find hearing from somebody with this experience kind of interesting. I can't answer the question "What's keeping me from Windows", but I can answer "Why would I want to leave?" Simply put, as my work load goes up, my time to tinker with computers goes down. I have reached a point where endlessly tweaking everything I've got is no longer fun. I've got my basic needs, now I want a appliance-esque machine that's ready to go and never need configuring.
So where do I want to go? Not Linux. Sorry folks, too much tinkering and looking up how to do basic things. I've tried, lots and lots of times. Instead, I'd rather go Apple. I can go buy an Apple laptop right now, have everything ready to go, and get just about all the software I want to run for it. No more Windows rot. Installation of new toys such as iPods or wireless routers etc is painless. The stand by mode doesn't rot over time. I could keep going.
Windows is working just fine for me. But I am sick of being paranoid about making backups. I am sick of knowing I have to reinstall Windows every 6 months or so. On top of all that, I'm tired of explaining to people that I don't have the problems they've had. Most of all, I'm tired of going into over-analytical mode when the minutist thing happens.
Windows isn't the worst thing in the world to me by any stretch of the imagination. Moving to Apple would be a nice luxurious move for me. I can't really say that I'm being forced in that direction, though. Maybe one day the Linux community will figure out that usability really is an interseting aspect to pursue and I'll be able to be more 'luxurious' for free.
" As long as KB keeps Tanenbaum responding, he is getting free publicity. "
Tanenbaum isn't exactly being the most professional in his responses either. His colorful responses will keep the drama alive. I'm sick of both of them, really.
"Excuse me? A Finnish student writes some software (in Finland) that a lot of people like and he is accused on sponging off U.S. corporations?"
That one in particular really bothered me. The guy had a point and Tanenbaum narrowly focused the view on Linus. KB's point was real simple: Lots of copying going on in the OSS world. Linux is trying to look like a cross-breed of Windows and Unix. Gimp is trying to look like Photoshop. Etc. What KB might have been trying to say is that it's not a fun thought for a corp to make a new piece of software if the OSS community is going to work feverishly to try to make a free substitute. Whether I interpreted that correctly or not is questionable (I can only get one of the pages to load...), but it's pretty clear from Tanenbaum's rebuttal that he was using a cheapshot to 'win' that point.
So yes, I agree, this is gaining publicity. Pity it's for the wrong reason.
"The first time it happens i see 20 seconds of stuff i don't like before i hit the switch. Next time it's 15 seconds. Third time it's 10 seconds, and there is no 4th because i stopped tuning in to that station/program."
That would not have prevented you from seeing Janet's boob.
"Remember that just because you agree with the censor today doesn't mean you're going to agree with the one that's in charge tomorrow. It's best to leave them out of it entirely."
Never said I agreed with it. As a matter of fact, I've said several times in this thread that I don't agree with the FCC here. The point I was making was that calling it censorship is incorrect. It's a restriction. Simple.
Incidently, the broadcast standards have been relaxing over the last few years.
"Americans have freedom of speech, and the right to change the channel or turn off the tv. That's all we need when it comes to the content of broadcast tv."
For the most part, I agree with that. The reason I say "the most part" is because there are going to need to be some restrictions here and there, i.e. no kiddie porn.
"So let em get this straight, government rules on what is allowed on tv isnt censorship?... However, i cant find another acceptable word than censhorship for the government telling me what im allowed to watch on tv. "
How many times do I gotta say no? Son of a bitch!
The government is not saying what can and cannot be shown on TV. I know, you're shaking your head right now. Listen, the gov't is not saying that you cannot see boobs on TV. The gov't is not saying you cannot say 'fuck' on TV. What it is saying is that ABC cannot broadcast those. The difference? You can still see anything you want via cable or renting movies. *You* cannot get into trouble if you do see something like Janet Jackson's boob. Instead, ABC gets it. This makes it a restriction, not censorship.
" Your assertion that "nobody complains about indecency laws" is patently false"
Nobody's complained about indecency laws. I'm not talking about TV here. I'm talking about not being able to walk up to somebody on the street and flash them. You might have figured this out if you were actually putting your brain into this.
"60 years ago, people ould have been outraged about the decency of a white man dancing with a black woman on a public stage. Who decides whats decent?"
You answered your own question. The people did. Look up Kirk and Uhura's kiss. They went down in history for that.;)
I find it interesting that TV has become more and more and more relaxed over the years, but Janet shows her tit and the government is suddenly a gawdaful dictatorship trying to brainwash the American public. Never mind that there was a time where you could not say pregnant on TV. Never mind that, more recently, the word shit was allowed. Never mind that we all were 'allowed' to see Dennis Franz's ass. Never mind that we can watch a documentary on breast surgery. No no no, the FCC said "no showin your boob on TV when there are kids watching". Bastards. How dare they come down on her even though the rules were clearly spelled out. The real conflict here is what the definition of decency is, even though it's far more quantifiable than everybody arguing with me here would like to believe.
I don't mean to be nasty with you personally, but I'm getting really fucking tired of going over this over and over and over again with people arguing with me by trying to take the key word and defining it so broadly that nothing could ever be true. The problem here isn't that the FCC suddenly introduced a new rule and nailed Janet on it. The rule's been on the books since TV first aired. How can it really be called censorship when she has plenty of means to express herself, and the rules of where she CAN'T do it are so clear? Don't answer. I'm not going to read it. Just understand and make up your own mind. I don't care if you agree with me or not, just process it.
Slashdot Mirror
... but I'm having to fight a little too hard to find neat things to do with Bluetooth. I made my laptop connecton the net once with my cell phone... but.. uh yeah.
"It only takes one."
And we'll just sit still and let it grow out of control...?
It is not my intention to belittle the danger of it, but all the scenarios I've heard so far have been thought out under the assumption that we as a species will just sit on the fence and watch the world fall apart.
"In a world as hyperparanoid as the current one is about weapons of mass destruction you have to wonder about technology that might enable a new class of WMD's when it falls in to malevolent hands, for example terrorists or the U.S. military."
I love this. The US Military hasn't dropped any WMDs in decades, but they're going to be manevolent with the next new batch. I shoud listen to whatever political talk show you are.
" ok, so Will Smith stars in I, Robot... but Wil Wheaton created intelligent nanites in a STTNG episode."
I betcha a palm reader would predict your single before you opened your hand. Heh.
"RIP G4 PowerMac"
Apple is taking an obsolete machine out of the market, that means they're dying!!!!
"Dear Sir, YHBT."
Sorry bud, but YHBT is about as effective at relieving embarassment as saying "I meant to do that!"
" Should be "A local news station are reporting..."
I didn't exactly get an A in English, so please forgive me if I'm wrong, but since station is singular, shouldn't it be "is" instead of "are"?
"Next thing you know these bastards are going to find a way to stick automated speed traps throughout the state and just mail you a ticket if you're caught speeding. Welcome to John Ashcroft's Amerika. Why not just implant a microchip under our skin and mail us a ticket anytime we do anything wrong?"
They do that to cut down on fatal car accidents at intersections, not to make us happy compliant americans.
Don't be so dramatic.
Ohio's enforcing the law! READY PITCHFORKS!!
"So is now the time to release AmigaOS 4.0? I mean, aren't most people thinking "AmigaOS 4?" going to assume it's really old and out of date?"
You're right. They should call it Amiga 95!!
*boy I hope everybody's in good humor today.
"Easy solution, don't use windoze."
Giggle giggle, snort snort, I made a funny at M$'s expense! Now the Slashdotters will like me! Tee hee hoddle haw!
"You should look harder for things."
Already seen that. When I last used it (It's been a year or so...) it didn't work with every AX control. If they fixed it, great.
"Sorry, if you let your users use insecure software when there are alternatives, you are an incompetent sysadmin."
Uh huh. It couldn't possibly be because there's some stuff only IE can do. No, it's because I'm incompetent.
Listen, jackass, this is not the tone that's going to convince anybody to switch. Listen to yourself. You're not showing me any respect. You're calling me incompetent. You're oversimplifying the problem. And, on top of all that, you're not even TRYING to understand what the problems I have are.
So how am I supposed to respond with anything but an attack back? This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! You guys want to get Mozilla out there? Stop being such assholes about it.
"The typical lame excuses of incorrect rendering or ActiveX or the fact that people can't visit their favorite game sites are all solvable."
Solvable? You mean Mozilla does secretly support ActiveX? If it can, PLEASE tell me how.
In the mean time, no, they are not all solvable. Unless, of course, you can make every plugin company in the world support stuff outside of AX.
Let me be clear about something: Don't call all the sysadmins out there incompetent just because they're using IE. Besides being rude, it's exactly the same attitude that's caused me to ignore Mozilla over the last couple of years. I'm sick of the way it zealously comes across. "I'm an idiot because I'm not a Mozilla fanboy?" That's why I made my parent post. If you really want adoption of Mozilla, don't let ambient arrogance into your posts. Nobody wants to listen to a condescending tone.
" You can download a fix for this here."
How come nobody can just say "If you're worried about this, you might consider using Mozilla.."?
"Long hours, weekends/holidays, on-call, bad pay... I sure feel like a corporate whore."
Keep it up, America! Your time is our money. *big smile*
"No Seriously why dont they just use disposable lens covers, like they make for motorcycle visors... when it gets covered with crap, just use a little robotic arm or something to remove it."
Why does everybody assume they thought of something that NASA didn't?
"Using the right tool for the job ... Is truly a lost art."
What? He is creating a tool.
Okay, I'm a Windows user who somehow got a magic computer that runs it just fine. I'm more or less happy. I'm productive. Maintaining it hasn't been a problem. Stability hasn't been a problem. All my software works. I can do my job. Etc. I kind of thought some of you would find hearing from somebody with this experience kind of interesting. I can't answer the question "What's keeping me from Windows", but I can answer "Why would I want to leave?" Simply put, as my work load goes up, my time to tinker with computers goes down. I have reached a point where endlessly tweaking everything I've got is no longer fun. I've got my basic needs, now I want a appliance-esque machine that's ready to go and never need configuring.
So where do I want to go? Not Linux. Sorry folks, too much tinkering and looking up how to do basic things. I've tried, lots and lots of times. Instead, I'd rather go Apple. I can go buy an Apple laptop right now, have everything ready to go, and get just about all the software I want to run for it. No more Windows rot. Installation of new toys such as iPods or wireless routers etc is painless. The stand by mode doesn't rot over time. I could keep going.
Windows is working just fine for me. But I am sick of being paranoid about making backups. I am sick of knowing I have to reinstall Windows every 6 months or so. On top of all that, I'm tired of explaining to people that I don't have the problems they've had. Most of all, I'm tired of going into over-analytical mode when the minutist thing happens.
Windows isn't the worst thing in the world to me by any stretch of the imagination. Moving to Apple would be a nice luxurious move for me. I can't really say that I'm being forced in that direction, though. Maybe one day the Linux community will figure out that usability really is an interseting aspect to pursue and I'll be able to be more 'luxurious' for free.
"Really? Do they force you to sit down and watch broadcast TV?"
Yeah becauuse that was soOOOoo what I was saying.
" As long as KB keeps Tanenbaum responding, he is getting free publicity. "
Tanenbaum isn't exactly being the most professional in his responses either. His colorful responses will keep the drama alive. I'm sick of both of them, really.
"Excuse me? A Finnish student writes some software (in Finland) that a lot of people like and he is accused on sponging off U.S. corporations?"
That one in particular really bothered me. The guy had a point and Tanenbaum narrowly focused the view on Linus. KB's point was real simple: Lots of copying going on in the OSS world. Linux is trying to look like a cross-breed of Windows and Unix. Gimp is trying to look like Photoshop. Etc. What KB might have been trying to say is that it's not a fun thought for a corp to make a new piece of software if the OSS community is going to work feverishly to try to make a free substitute. Whether I interpreted that correctly or not is questionable (I can only get one of the pages to load...), but it's pretty clear from Tanenbaum's rebuttal that he was using a cheapshot to 'win' that point.
So yes, I agree, this is gaining publicity. Pity it's for the wrong reason.
"The first time it happens i see 20 seconds of stuff i don't like before i hit the switch. Next time it's 15 seconds. Third time it's 10 seconds, and there is no 4th because i stopped tuning in to that station/program."
That would not have prevented you from seeing Janet's boob.
"Remember that just because you agree with the censor today doesn't mean you're going to agree with the one that's in charge tomorrow. It's best to leave them out of it entirely."
Never said I agreed with it. As a matter of fact, I've said several times in this thread that I don't agree with the FCC here. The point I was making was that calling it censorship is incorrect. It's a restriction. Simple.
Incidently, the broadcast standards have been relaxing over the last few years.
"Americans have freedom of speech, and the right to change the channel or turn off the tv. That's all we need when it comes to the content of broadcast tv."
For the most part, I agree with that. The reason I say "the most part" is because there are going to need to be some restrictions here and there, i.e. no kiddie porn.
"So let em get this straight, government rules on what is allowed on tv isnt censorship? ... However, i cant find another acceptable word than censhorship for the government telling me what im allowed to watch on tv.
"
How many times do I gotta say no? Son of a bitch!
The government is not saying what can and cannot be shown on TV. I know, you're shaking your head right now. Listen, the gov't is not saying that you cannot see boobs on TV. The gov't is not saying you cannot say 'fuck' on TV. What it is saying is that ABC cannot broadcast those. The difference? You can still see anything you want via cable or renting movies. *You* cannot get into trouble if you do see something like Janet Jackson's boob. Instead, ABC gets it. This makes it a restriction, not censorship.
" Your assertion that "nobody complains about indecency laws" is patently false"
Nobody's complained about indecency laws. I'm not talking about TV here. I'm talking about not being able to walk up to somebody on the street and flash them. You might have figured this out if you were actually putting your brain into this.
"Did you actually read the thread you just commented upon?"
Not much of a rebuttal. I take it you ran out of steam?
"It isnt?"
;)
For the last fucking time, NO. Heh.
"60 years ago, people ould have been outraged about the decency of a white man dancing with a black woman on a public stage. Who decides whats decent?"
You answered your own question. The people did. Look up Kirk and Uhura's kiss. They went down in history for that.
I find it interesting that TV has become more and more and more relaxed over the years, but Janet shows her tit and the government is suddenly a gawdaful dictatorship trying to brainwash the American public. Never mind that there was a time where you could not say pregnant on TV. Never mind that, more recently, the word shit was allowed. Never mind that we all were 'allowed' to see Dennis Franz's ass. Never mind that we can watch a documentary on breast surgery. No no no, the FCC said "no showin your boob on TV when there are kids watching". Bastards. How dare they come down on her even though the rules were clearly spelled out. The real conflict here is what the definition of decency is, even though it's far more quantifiable than everybody arguing with me here would like to believe.
I don't mean to be nasty with you personally, but I'm getting really fucking tired of going over this over and over and over again with people arguing with me by trying to take the key word and defining it so broadly that nothing could ever be true. The problem here isn't that the FCC suddenly introduced a new rule and nailed Janet on it. The rule's been on the books since TV first aired. How can it really be called censorship when she has plenty of means to express herself, and the rules of where she CAN'T do it are so clear? Don't answer. I'm not going to read it. Just understand and make up your own mind. I don't care if you agree with me or not, just process it.