Newsflash, the majority of people who use computers change things like the volume and brightness a hell of a lot more than they take screenshots. So when you plug in a REAL keyboard (i.e. one that doesn't waste keys on things like print screen) you need to use a key combination for taking a screen shot.
I'm not sure if those specific Mountain Lion shortcuts replace the previous ones or not. Hopefully not.
To take a screenshot on a Mac it's always been command-shift-3. By using other combinations (4 instead of 3, or option instead of command for example) you can take shots of just a window, or a drawn out section of the screen, or other variations. Mac keyboards don't have a dedicated print screen button, which is a good choice because it's rarely used. The functionality is a single key combination, with close alternatives for variations. It's fairly simple and doesn't waste a key.
You've nicely illustrated that either (a) it's not a problem to have people driving on the taxiways and runways or (b) it is a problem, and there should be a fence.
My home town has an airport. We used to ride our bikes on the runway all the time, because it had no cars and was long, straight and cool. The local flying club or the odd oil exec flying in didn't care: they buzzed the runway routinely before landing to make sure there wasn't anybody (or any cows) on it.
The nearest commercial airport (in a city smaller than Fairbanks) had a fence, mostly because airline pilots dislike buzzing the field before their approach. It wasn't much of a fence, but if you had a plane there you had to get the combination for the lock on the gate from whoever was in charge of that kind of thing. You couldn't drive through it casually though.
At every airport I've ever been to that "motion activated gate" has required id, a keycard, a combination or getting out of the car and turning a key in the rusty padlock. Anchorage International may want to invest in something similar.
There's a city park in Calgary that's right in line with one of the runways. When I was learning to hang glide we used it to train because it has a nice hill that's clear of obstructions almost 360 degrees around. We had to be careful to be holding the gliders down when a plane went over because they were low enough that we would feel the wash.
There were a bunch of no kite flying signs. Generally we'd get in a few runs before a woman (it was always a woman for some reason) with a cop in tow would show up. We'd show the cop a copy of our letter from Transport Canada giving us permission, then chat with him about hang gliding for a bit while the woman turned purple.
I've been to Gibraltar. I walked across that runway every morning for a week. There were always guys there in jeeps who took a dim view of anyone, car or pedestrian, who strayed off the marked crossing. Not to mention the customs guys... it IS an international border.
When a plane is about to take off or land the guys in jeeps shoo everyone off the runway and the barriers come down.
My local(ish) airport growing up was in a city of 20,000. There was a fence around the airport grounds. Sure, you could have gotten in if you were persistent or had some wire cutters, but you sure couldn't drive through it by accident.
That was considerably before the current state of hysteria too.
If you're going to summarize the article at least read it carefully. 7 ms is the fibre optic travel time. The speed of light time is just over 2 ms, probably very close to 2 ms if you happened to go in a straight line. It's just barely possible to get a signal from New York to Chicago in the allotted time, even without having a neutrino radio as the article author jokes.
Read more carefully. Or check the author's math. It takes 7 ms to get a signal from NY to Chicago through fibre optics. The speed of light time is 2 ms.
I believe Popular Science still publishes letters to the editor. They're just going back to the system where you have to make an slight effort and express your comment in a form that's coherent enough for an editor to understand it.
At least that would be funny. Debating creationists is like arguing about bedtime with a toddler who thinks whomever shouts loudest wins. Most of them literally believe the rhetorical equivalent: that whoever holds onto their beliefs most tenaciously is the better person.
We hypothesize that within w years, if experimental conditions (particularly the output of human-produced CO2) are maintained, global average temperatures will rise by x, causing displacement of y people and a drop in worldwide agriculture of z.
Some people think it might not be such a good idea to test that hypothesis and so put stock in somewhat less direct experiments. Kind of like how LD50 experiments work.
"silencing any source of ideas, is never desirable."
Maybe not silencing, but making most ideas very, very quiet so you can hear the rest is almost always a good idea. I support the time cube guy's right to blabber on about time cube, but I am strongly in favour of him not doing it in my lab meeting. Or anywhere I'm trying to do something other than get a laugh from the nutjob.
Not letting you (yes, you AC) deface my website isn't censorship. Nor is it an infringement on free speech.
They've decided (probably rightly) that comments on their site are a net negative feature and so they're getting rid of them. Personally I think too many sites have embraced the web-2.0-everything-must-allow-you-to-express-your-opinion-right-the-hell-now bandwagon.
Sorry, let me rephrase: SOMEONE proposed to give a digital operation the name of a physical action to make understanding it easier. "Yank" is a poor choice because it implies moving something, not copying it. It doesn't matter what you can or cannot do.
Better? Your argument trying to justify using "yank" was still based on an irrelevant premise.
The term yank has been used for years by programs not known for their user friendliness. Even then, Google shows up lots of comments on the inaccuracy of the term. Including some speculation that the word was chosen because it happened to start with the letter of an unused key.
Actually, I was going to say that YOUR point adds nothing to the discussion. You're just making up problems that don't really exist. It's NOT dangerous to text at stop lights. I highly doubt you're more likely to be rear ended. If you want to have that statement stand you're going to have to back it up with something. Most drivers are capable of not accelerating into the stopped car in front of them. If there are some who are not, it's probably beneficial to identify them in low speed collisions at stop lights and get them off the road (via higher insurance premiums).
By your definition of "dangerous" it's dangerous for someone to get out of bed in the morning because by driving, walking, or simply standing somewhere they could add to congestion, which increases crashes (but can reduce fatal and serious injury crashes... interesting). If it's actually a significant effect then we'd be far better to go after all the grannies who don't pin their accelerators as soon as the light turns green. But actual traffic studies show that NOT doing that is beneficial, not detrimental.
Violent dickheads are dangerous yes. They should be segregated from normal society. Most nations have public infrastructure for doing this.
That really doesn't have much to do with whether or not texting at stop lights is dangerous.
Gridlock, by the way, is not caused by people failing to advance promptly at green lights. It's caused by people not judging whether there's enough space for them on the other side of the intersection and blocking it when their light turns red. Texting at red lights should have no effect on gridlock, except possibly in the special case where someone is dumb enough to do it while being the dickhead who's sitting in the middle of the intersection on the red light. For people THAT dumb licenses should be revoked. For the violent ones, there's that public segregation infrastruture.
Slashdot Mirror
Newsflash, the majority of people who use computers change things like the volume and brightness a hell of a lot more than they take screenshots. So when you plug in a REAL keyboard (i.e. one that doesn't waste keys on things like print screen) you need to use a key combination for taking a screen shot.
I'm not sure if those specific Mountain Lion shortcuts replace the previous ones or not. Hopefully not.
To take a screenshot on a Mac it's always been command-shift-3. By using other combinations (4 instead of 3, or option instead of command for example) you can take shots of just a window, or a drawn out section of the screen, or other variations. Mac keyboards don't have a dedicated print screen button, which is a good choice because it's rarely used. The functionality is a single key combination, with close alternatives for variations. It's fairly simple and doesn't waste a key.
No more than it cleansed the world of Garmin/TomTom/Google brainwashed morons.
More interesting to walk it.
You've nicely illustrated that either (a) it's not a problem to have people driving on the taxiways and runways or (b) it is a problem, and there should be a fence.
My home town has an airport. We used to ride our bikes on the runway all the time, because it had no cars and was long, straight and cool. The local flying club or the odd oil exec flying in didn't care: they buzzed the runway routinely before landing to make sure there wasn't anybody (or any cows) on it.
The nearest commercial airport (in a city smaller than Fairbanks) had a fence, mostly because airline pilots dislike buzzing the field before their approach. It wasn't much of a fence, but if you had a plane there you had to get the combination for the lock on the gate from whoever was in charge of that kind of thing. You couldn't drive through it casually though.
Whoops, Fairbanks.
At every airport I've ever been to that "motion activated gate" has required id, a keycard, a combination or getting out of the car and turning a key in the rusty padlock. Anchorage International may want to invest in something similar.
There's a city park in Calgary that's right in line with one of the runways. When I was learning to hang glide we used it to train because it has a nice hill that's clear of obstructions almost 360 degrees around. We had to be careful to be holding the gliders down when a plane went over because they were low enough that we would feel the wash.
There were a bunch of no kite flying signs. Generally we'd get in a few runs before a woman (it was always a woman for some reason) with a cop in tow would show up. We'd show the cop a copy of our letter from Transport Canada giving us permission, then chat with him about hang gliding for a bit while the woman turned purple.
Yeah. You have to build them bigger because everyone has 4x4s.
I've been to Gibraltar. I walked across that runway every morning for a week. There were always guys there in jeeps who took a dim view of anyone, car or pedestrian, who strayed off the marked crossing. Not to mention the customs guys... it IS an international border.
When a plane is about to take off or land the guys in jeeps shoo everyone off the runway and the barriers come down.
My local(ish) airport growing up was in a city of 20,000. There was a fence around the airport grounds. Sure, you could have gotten in if you were persistent or had some wire cutters, but you sure couldn't drive through it by accident.
That was considerably before the current state of hysteria too.
If you're going to summarize the article at least read it carefully. 7 ms is the fibre optic travel time. The speed of light time is just over 2 ms, probably very close to 2 ms if you happened to go in a straight line. It's just barely possible to get a signal from New York to Chicago in the allotted time, even without having a neutrino radio as the article author jokes.
Read more carefully. Or check the author's math. It takes 7 ms to get a signal from NY to Chicago through fibre optics. The speed of light time is 2 ms.
I was expecting you to say at the end of your comment "whoops, that's Slashdot."
I believe Popular Science still publishes letters to the editor. They're just going back to the system where you have to make an slight effort and express your comment in a form that's coherent enough for an editor to understand it.
At least that would be funny. Debating creationists is like arguing about bedtime with a toddler who thinks whomever shouts loudest wins. Most of them literally believe the rhetorical equivalent: that whoever holds onto their beliefs most tenaciously is the better person.
We hypothesize that within w years, if experimental conditions (particularly the output of human-produced CO2) are maintained, global average temperatures will rise by x, causing displacement of y people and a drop in worldwide agriculture of z.
Some people think it might not be such a good idea to test that hypothesis and so put stock in somewhat less direct experiments. Kind of like how LD50 experiments work.
"silencing any source of ideas, is never desirable."
Maybe not silencing, but making most ideas very, very quiet so you can hear the rest is almost always a good idea. I support the time cube guy's right to blabber on about time cube, but I am strongly in favour of him not doing it in my lab meeting. Or anywhere I'm trying to do something other than get a laugh from the nutjob.
Not letting you (yes, you AC) deface my website isn't censorship. Nor is it an infringement on free speech.
They've decided (probably rightly) that comments on their site are a net negative feature and so they're getting rid of them. Personally I think too many sites have embraced the web-2.0-everything-must-allow-you-to-express-your-opinion-right-the-hell-now bandwagon.
Does Gnome copy text when you drag and drop? Every other time I've used that feature (rarely) the text has moved.
As you pointed out, unless you're trying to scan fingerprints across a room you're necessarily working in the near field.
That's an issue with you and the other guy failing to shoulder check.
Sorry, let me rephrase: SOMEONE proposed to give a digital operation the name of a physical action to make understanding it easier. "Yank" is a poor choice because it implies moving something, not copying it. It doesn't matter what you can or cannot do.
Better? Your argument trying to justify using "yank" was still based on an irrelevant premise.
The term yank has been used for years by programs not known for their user friendliness. Even then, Google shows up lots of comments on the inaccuracy of the term. Including some speculation that the word was chosen because it happened to start with the letter of an unused key.
Actually, I was going to say that YOUR point adds nothing to the discussion. You're just making up problems that don't really exist. It's NOT dangerous to text at stop lights. I highly doubt you're more likely to be rear ended. If you want to have that statement stand you're going to have to back it up with something. Most drivers are capable of not accelerating into the stopped car in front of them. If there are some who are not, it's probably beneficial to identify them in low speed collisions at stop lights and get them off the road (via higher insurance premiums).
By your definition of "dangerous" it's dangerous for someone to get out of bed in the morning because by driving, walking, or simply standing somewhere they could add to congestion, which increases crashes (but can reduce fatal and serious injury crashes... interesting). If it's actually a significant effect then we'd be far better to go after all the grannies who don't pin their accelerators as soon as the light turns green. But actual traffic studies show that NOT doing that is beneficial, not detrimental.
Violent dickheads are dangerous yes. They should be segregated from normal society. Most nations have public infrastructure for doing this.
That really doesn't have much to do with whether or not texting at stop lights is dangerous.
Gridlock, by the way, is not caused by people failing to advance promptly at green lights. It's caused by people not judging whether there's enough space for them on the other side of the intersection and blocking it when their light turns red. Texting at red lights should have no effect on gridlock, except possibly in the special case where someone is dumb enough to do it while being the dickhead who's sitting in the middle of the intersection on the red light. For people THAT dumb licenses should be revoked. For the violent ones, there's that public segregation infrastruture.