The middle button does a "paste current selection", which is not exactly equivalent to any of the other cut / copy / paste functions you find on Windows or Linux. I noticed that OSX has this function available in some apps as shift-command-V.
You can completely ignore it if you do not like it awnd stick to control x / c / v, or you can choose to use it.
Either way, it should not interfere with the normal cut / copy / paste operations that are available.
If you cannot keep that strait in your mind, then ignore the functionality and do it the way Windows does it.
I have found as much consistency on Linux for cut / copy / paste between applications as I ever found on Windows, when I used it -- both are far from perfect.
If they were to do this (soon), and do not fall victim to SCO-like legal antics but can show they have full rights to GPL it, this would be amazing and have significant impact.
Under a Sun-specific license, it is far less significant.
They were having to create the UI from scratch, and there were some very basic things not portable i.e. font sizes in AWT (given in pixels on PC and in points in Mac).
But by far the worst performance problem reported by a majority of people testing it was that people were demoing it as a browser applet and thought the download time (mostly over modems at the time) was part of the startup time of the program.
The Java word processing engine was much faster and more reliable (due to redesign) than the C/C++ version of WordPerfect at the time on the same machine.
I suspect it was also suffering from poor garbage collection and other JVM problems.
And no one understood the great modularity and pluggability that had been designed into it, due to political problems at Corel, who could never figure out a business model for it.
And if you use C/C++ your application will be easy to make fast, no matter what you're doing.
This is a very silly claim, at least as bad as the one you were responding to, that if an application is written in C/C++ it will be easy to make fast.
Then why do we have so many very-poorly-performing native applications out there.
I have seen enough cases where a well-designed Java app outperforms by an order of magnitude a poorly-designed C++ app.
I am all for using C/C++ where it is appropriate, but C/C++ is no magic silver bullet when it comes to performance any more than Java is. In either language, if you have carefully-constructed libraries, porting can be quite straitforward and if you have a design that plays to the strengths of the platform, performance can be reasonable. Performance and portability are always a matter of design. It does not just happen as a result of choice of platform.
The neocons policy of kill them all and sort things out later is creating more terrorists by killing innocents. They are taking normal civilians and badly mistreating them, and what do you expect.
Because some western weddings in places easy to travel to follow a particular schedule, anything else is terrorism. That's how they find so many terrorists to kill, as I said. Kill them all, sort them out later.
A significant percentaqge of the few people released from Gantanamo reported the same sorts of abuses, making it obvious it was widespread.
How do you think this sort of wide-spread abuse could be hushed up inside of Iraq.
How about the abused Reuters and NBC reporters who were never even interviewed by the military, and warned by the General to give up their claims of being abused in a very similar fashion? This was just one of the highest-profile examples.
Americans who think this was the first report of these problems have their heads where the sun doesn't shine, still wondering why former allies no longer support them.
Large numbers of reports appeared in other presses of murders, tortures, etc. The military has categorically called them all lies, and claimed it was an excuse for censoring in Iraq and trying to cause censorship in other Arab countries. This is also why the Iraqis published the report comparing Bremer with Sadaam, which caused Bremer to shut down his presses and start another major part of the war with groups of Iraqis which previously were willing to cooperate, but had been shown that American democracy was tyrrany.
Military policy was mostly to ignore them or suppress them. Abu Ghraib was raised by an insider in such a way that it was difficult to ignore, but the military was doing their best, until the pictures made it past the censors, despite the efforts of the DOD to supress them.
Did I say that censorship was less in WWII? No, nor did I imply that in any way. What does this have to do with whether Bush would censor Rush Limbaugh, who ridicules the Iraqi victims as nothing more than victims of a college prank.
Published numbers show that less than 2% of people imprisoned in Iraq as "terrorists" are foreign. Calling an obvious wedding party a bunch of foreign terrorists is the only way you can get numbers to support your claim. The secret society of wedding musicians is really an organisation to be feared.
How about the US-sponsored Iraqi National Congress, accused of many crimes and now discovering strong links to the Iraqis, who wanted to be rid of the secular government so that the religous leaders could take over where they control the armies and the populations. The US is the problem and the real terrorists were always first supported by covert action of the US. If only the US believed in letting countries determine their own future instead of always supporting the most-convenient dictator / terrorist and immoral American commanders.
And if WMD or state links to terrorism had been the concern, we would be killing Pakistanis today instead of Iraqis. Pakistan today is Sadaam yesterday.
Both parties were extremely negligent on the threat of terrorism.
Both parties supported the Patriot Act.
Both parties supported Digital Millenium Copyright Act and every other bad piece of legislation we are suffering under...
We should still be upset at Disney and others who are a cause of much evil and control a press which censors out what most of the rest of the world knows -- not just in this film, but in the news organizations they control.
Abu Ghraib was a yawn for the rest of the world, even in Iraq. It was only a big deal in America because it was something that happened to slip past the censors. The rest of the world had seen this stuff since the war started, and took it seriously from the first day, which is one of many issues filtered by the press (compare international CNN with American CNN) which have caused them to lose all respect for American government.
Why do you think right-wing censorship would silence Rush? There is considerable censorship going on today, where it concerns reporting the horrors of the war, but Rush is always on the side of those performing the atrocities.
As Michael Eisner has said before, we are a company that is founded on ideals of the American family backbone
Not "is founded", but only was founded. Huge Corporations are driven by the bottom line and dreams of ultimate control. Disney has recently been behind so many things that undermine the rights and values of the American Family, this is simply no longer a credible position for Disney.
It is not just groups at one end of the spectrum that feel that Disney is the enemy.
And for slashdot context, what does Disney have against free software that I should be forbidden from playing the DVDs I purchase using free software? And why do they think their shallow mutations of the rich public domain from which they drew their stories should never fall back into public domain, as it was supposed to occur in American society. Is control of all computing and content by monopoly corporations a Disney value, too? How is it not censorship? Most corporations have done something from time to time to show they actually are aware of community and consumer issues and concerns, but clearly not Disney.
Why acknowledge the consumer when you can control the market?
Drug companies waste huge amounts of money trying to find alternative ways to solve already solved problems so that they can monopolize a drug. Between that and unreasonable FDA requirements, a free economy would seem to have to spend far less to achieve a better result than the current government-granted monopolies.
My doctor is wined and dined regularly by drug companies pedaling their monopolies. Why would that occur if they really had something new and worthwhile that sold itself.
I know of numerous cases of carefully scientifically verified alternative treatments that are not sold by drug companies because they are publicly known and cannot be monopolised, and when an existing drug monopoly goes out of patent, they make patentable modifications without improving the drug at all so they can put their marketing muscle behind another monopoly.
While the research benefits the companies, any help it provides for consumers is grossly overstated and underperforming because the emphasis is on monopoly, just like Microsoft.
So then we get lots more government regulation to control the spiraling costs of health care and make sure people don't buy drugs from Canada, etc.
That ought to be about as successful as suing Windows users for the problems caused by viruses ravaging their machines to innocent third parties who were smart enough not to use Windows.
It said the speakers were stereo. Need only one?
on
Video T-shirts
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Must be some sort of holographic audio device. Reminds me of a speaker I saw someone using, connected to his clock radio, that said "Stereo" in big letters. I was really impressed.
Had you actually read the response, you might have noticed that I never defended either the stupidity of the person spitting or the stupidity of the person being spit on. Those who try to understand other people and points of view, wouldn't make themselves such an obvious target and the world would be a less-hostile place.
You have proven one thing: That typical Americans can be at least as stupid as typical French keeping their heads where the sun doesn't shine.
You could only possibly do something about your own stupidity, and you refuse, so how are you in a position to accuse them and call yourself a victim.
You are essentially telling me that I am at fault for asking the time to a French person in Paris because of the way I look or act.
Yes. A person wearing a turban in America walking around with an attitude that he and Islam was more important than the concerns of the silly country he was in and it's population should also expect to be treated badly.
This is equivalent to saying that a rape victim deserved what she got because of the way she looked or behaved.
Not even close. Being at fault is not at all the same as saying that someone deserved something. A person seldom legally or morally deserves to be in an accident, even though he may be at fault. I have yet to hear a judge say that the person at fault deserved the consequences, except where the consequeces are legally-imposed punishment (and even then it is extremely debatable). The same holds true of murder, rape, or any number of other things. For any victim of crime, I can think of circumstances where I would say, "well what did you expect to happen in those circumstances", but that is not saying he deserved it and it is a presumption of intelligence that may not be true, because a truly ignorant person may always plead ignorance, as will people with other agendas, (such as insurance fraud in the case of automobile accidents).
Now answer the question: Yes or No
A rape victim never deserves to the victim of rape and it is always a crime, but the victim may occasionally be at fault for stupidity. This does not lessen the crime or mean the victim deserved it, because rape is a crime that is never justified, not even by American soldiers in Iraq who claim to be following orders.
Comparing that to your issue with the French, if making judgements of people based upon their national origins or other stereotypes were a crime, you would be easily convicted, yourself, and the inquisition would never end.
And don't give me any wordy responses because I've lost the patience to read anymore of your posts.
Sorry, but your simplistic world of stereotypes and one-word answers implying biases and misunderstandings is not one I choose to live in or conform to. Derserving consequences is not the same as being at fault, but the difference can be difficult to comprehend in cases of extreme stupidity of the person misbehaving, especially when the victim failed to learn from previous experiences and interactions.
If you make the connection between that discussion and the present one. You are changing the subject unless you are somehow including rape in your unfriendly behaviors. I would call it a crime instead. What has that got to do with someone visiting France repeatedly and not having a clue why dressing like an American bum would not give them the best experience there.
Were you raped there? If so, then that is truly a different discussion, and I could imagine that the strong lingering memories would make you hate the French, just as someone visiting New York or any other place might be justifiably irrational and make generalizations about all New Yorkers.
I live on a pier which is the single closest appartment building to NYC that is still in NJ. I don't get to NYC very often, but when I do, I am usually lost if I'm travelling by foot. I have asked for directions a gazillion times and the worst thing I have gotten was a few people pretending not to hear me (they probably thought I was a bum, which is debatible).
So you think being mistakable for a bum makes you acceptable in France? You are wrong. Different societies look at different things, and it depends upon who you try to interact with as well. Get something besides a printed T-shirt and jeans.
But seriously... keep bringing up Iraq and the prisoner abuse. The next time the Germans invade France we'll be supplying the bombs...
That is exactly why I brought it up. The hyper-nationalistic attitude, exhibited by the original post is exactly what I believe makes someone appear to people to be an ugly American to be spit on. You being rejected on every visit is no accident but an attitude which they stereotype as American because it sticks out like a sore thumb, giving all Americans a bad name, even though not all Americans are that way. You can't have it both ways hating the French and blaming them in a few superficial encounters for not accepting you without any attempt on your part to try to think what they feel and think.
While the present-day American government might well desire to make an alliance with the Germany of the 1930's and 1940's, the Germany of today has been well-trained by the occupying forces to be pacifist, and is much more closely aligned with France and Europe than with the US, but I suppose you can always hope for another Hitler.
If your wardrobe does not contain any decent clothes, I would suggest a new wardrobe before travelling anywhere. I did not have to buy new clothes to fit in there.
I am sure you would find enough people in New York (comparable to Paris in many ways) that would sooner spit than talk to someone behaving rude and / or touristy.
Other cultures should be more tolerant of visiting Americans. Don't people know they abuse Americans in the Texas prisons the same way they do in Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo Bay. Why shouldn't they be permitted to behave as they like wherever they are occupying, without regard to anyone else's values and feelings.
American tourists tend to behave with extreme stupidity in France as in other places.
I have travelled on business to France including visits to Paris many times. I do not speak a word of French, but I have never been treated poorly by French, and have had a lot of fun there, even when I politely ask for help in English.
If people can tell by your dress and behavior that you are American, it is a bad start, and it is because you haven't tried to appreciate the culture there. While they may seem rude to you, if you do not adapt, you certainly seem rude to them.
Look around. See how people dress. See how people behave. Notice that in Europe generally, you don't have to open your mouth much because it is designed for international accessibility.
On my last trip to Paris, I took a party of French-speaking Americans who lived in Paris to a nice local restaurant.
They were having to translate parts of the menu and order for me. At the end, the waitress thought she was paying me the ultimate compliment, saying that the way I had behaved, she hadn't even suspected that I was American, but had thought I must be British.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the break key was always the most fun. Use it to switch between sessions. Oh, you are on the console line? Too bad.
You can actually remap most of the command editing keys and make yourself right at home on Linux.
The middle button does a "paste current selection", which is not exactly equivalent to any of the other cut / copy / paste functions you find on Windows or Linux. I noticed that OSX has this function available in some apps as shift-command-V.
You can completely ignore it if you do not like it awnd stick to control x / c / v, or you can choose to use it.
Either way, it should not interfere with the normal cut / copy / paste operations that are available.
If you cannot keep that strait in your mind, then ignore the functionality and do it the way Windows does it.
I have found as much consistency on Linux for cut / copy / paste between applications as I ever found on Windows, when I used it -- both are far from perfect.
If they were to do this (soon), and do not fall victim to SCO-like legal antics but can show they have full rights to GPL it, this would be amazing and have significant impact.
Under a Sun-specific license, it is far less significant.
They were having to create the UI from scratch, and there were some very basic things not portable i.e. font sizes in AWT (given in pixels on PC and in points in Mac).
But by far the worst performance problem reported by a majority of people testing it was that people were demoing it as a browser applet and thought the download time (mostly over modems at the time) was part of the startup time of the program.
The Java word processing engine was much faster and more reliable (due to redesign) than the C/C++ version of WordPerfect at the time on the same machine.
I suspect it was also suffering from poor garbage collection and other JVM problems.
And no one understood the great modularity and pluggability that had been designed into it, due to political problems at Corel, who could never figure out a business model for it.
And if you use C/C++ your application will be easy to make fast, no matter what you're doing.
This is a very silly claim, at least as bad as the one you were responding to, that if an application is written in C/C++ it will be easy to make fast.
Then why do we have so many very-poorly-performing native applications out there.
I have seen enough cases where a well-designed Java app outperforms by an order of magnitude a poorly-designed C++ app.
I am all for using C/C++ where it is appropriate, but C/C++ is no magic silver bullet when it comes to performance any more than Java is. In either language, if you have carefully-constructed libraries, porting can be quite straitforward and if you have a design that plays to the strengths of the platform, performance can be reasonable. Performance and portability are always a matter of design. It does not just happen as a result of choice of platform.
The neocons policy of kill them all and sort things out later is creating more terrorists by killing innocents. They are taking normal civilians and badly mistreating them, and what do you expect.
Because some western weddings in places easy to travel to follow a particular schedule, anything else is terrorism. That's how they find so many terrorists to kill, as I said. Kill them all, sort them out later.
A significant percentaqge of the few people released from Gantanamo reported the same sorts of abuses, making it obvious it was widespread.
How do you think this sort of wide-spread abuse could be hushed up inside of Iraq.
How about the abused Reuters and NBC reporters who were never even interviewed by the military, and warned by the General to give up their claims of being abused in a very similar fashion? This was just one of the highest-profile examples.
Americans who think this was the first report of these problems have their heads where the sun doesn't shine, still wondering why former allies no longer support them.
Large numbers of reports appeared in other presses of murders, tortures, etc. The military has categorically called them all lies, and claimed it was an excuse for censoring in Iraq and trying to cause censorship in other Arab countries. This is also why the Iraqis published the report comparing Bremer with Sadaam, which caused Bremer to shut down his presses and start another major part of the war with groups of Iraqis which previously were willing to cooperate, but had been shown that American democracy was tyrrany.
Military policy was mostly to ignore them or suppress them. Abu Ghraib was raised by an insider in such a way that it was difficult to ignore, but the military was doing their best, until the pictures made it past the censors, despite the efforts of the DOD to supress them.
Did I say that censorship was less in WWII? No, nor did I imply that in any way. What does this have to do with whether Bush would censor Rush Limbaugh, who ridicules the Iraqi victims as nothing more than victims of a college prank.
How about the US-sponsored Iraqi National Congress, accused of many crimes and now discovering strong links to the Iraqis, who wanted to be rid of the secular government so that the religous leaders could take over where they control the armies and the populations. The US is the problem and the real terrorists were always first supported by covert action of the US. If only the US believed in letting countries determine their own future instead of always supporting the most-convenient dictator / terrorist and immoral American commanders.
And if WMD or state links to terrorism had been the concern, we would be killing Pakistanis today instead of Iraqis. Pakistan today is Sadaam yesterday.
How is this anything like a net positive?
Both parties are the problem.
Both parties supported the war.
Both parties were extremely negligent on the threat of terrorism.
Both parties supported the Patriot Act.
Both parties supported Digital Millenium Copyright Act and every other bad piece of legislation we are suffering under...
We should still be upset at Disney and others who are a cause of much evil and control a press which censors out what most of the rest of the world knows -- not just in this film, but in the news organizations they control.
Abu Ghraib was a yawn for the rest of the world, even in Iraq. It was only a big deal in America because it was something that happened to slip past the censors. The rest of the world had seen this stuff since the war started, and took it seriously from the first day, which is one of many issues filtered by the press (compare international CNN with American CNN) which have caused them to lose all respect for American government.
Why do you think right-wing censorship would silence Rush? There is considerable censorship going on today, where it concerns reporting the horrors of the war, but Rush is always on the side of those performing the atrocities.
Perhaps if we bring those war dead home, the Criminal in Chief won't be too ashamed to show them on television.
As Michael Eisner has said before, we are a company that is founded on ideals of the American family backbone
Not "is founded", but only was founded. Huge Corporations are driven by the bottom line and dreams of ultimate control. Disney has recently been behind so many things that undermine the rights and values of the American Family, this is simply no longer a credible position for Disney.
It is not just groups at one end of the spectrum that feel that Disney is the enemy.
And for slashdot context, what does Disney have against free software that I should be forbidden from playing the DVDs I purchase using free software? And why do they think their shallow mutations of the rich public domain from which they drew their stories should never fall back into public domain, as it was supposed to occur in American society. Is control of all computing and content by monopoly corporations a Disney value, too? How is it not censorship? Most corporations have done something from time to time to show they actually are aware of community and consumer issues and concerns, but clearly not Disney. Why acknowledge the consumer when you can control the market?
My doctor is wined and dined regularly by drug companies pedaling their monopolies. Why would that occur if they really had something new and worthwhile that sold itself.
I know of numerous cases of carefully scientifically verified alternative treatments that are not sold by drug companies because they are publicly known and cannot be monopolised, and when an existing drug monopoly goes out of patent, they make patentable modifications without improving the drug at all so they can put their marketing muscle behind another monopoly.
While the research benefits the companies, any help it provides for consumers is grossly overstated and underperforming because the emphasis is on monopoly, just like Microsoft.
So then we get lots more government regulation to control the spiraling costs of health care and make sure people don't buy drugs from Canada, etc.
That ought to be about as successful as suing Windows users for the problems caused by viruses ravaging their machines to innocent third parties who were smart enough not to use Windows.
Must be some sort of holographic audio device. Reminds me of a speaker I saw someone using, connected to his clock radio, that said "Stereo" in big letters. I was really impressed.
Had you actually read the response, you might have noticed that I never defended either the stupidity of the person spitting or the stupidity of the person being spit on. Those who try to understand other people and points of view, wouldn't make themselves such an obvious target and the world would be a less-hostile place.
You have proven one thing: That typical Americans can be at least as stupid as typical French keeping their heads where the sun doesn't shine.
You could only possibly do something about your own stupidity, and you refuse, so how are you in a position to accuse them and call yourself a victim.
You are essentially telling me that I am at fault for asking the time to a French person in Paris because of the way I look or act.
Yes. A person wearing a turban in America walking around with an attitude that he and Islam was more important than the concerns of the silly country he was in and it's population should also expect to be treated badly.
This is equivalent to saying that a rape victim deserved what she got because of the way she looked or behaved.
Not even close. Being at fault is not at all the same as saying that someone deserved something. A person seldom legally or morally deserves to be in an accident, even though he may be at fault. I have yet to hear a judge say that the person at fault deserved the consequences, except where the consequeces are legally-imposed punishment (and even then it is extremely debatable). The same holds true of murder, rape, or any number of other things. For any victim of crime, I can think of circumstances where I would say, "well what did you expect to happen in those circumstances", but that is not saying he deserved it and it is a presumption of intelligence that may not be true, because a truly ignorant person may always plead ignorance, as will people with other agendas, (such as insurance fraud in the case of automobile accidents).
Now answer the question: Yes or No
A rape victim never deserves to the victim of rape and it is always a crime, but the victim may occasionally be at fault for stupidity. This does not lessen the crime or mean the victim deserved it, because rape is a crime that is never justified, not even by American soldiers in Iraq who claim to be following orders.Comparing that to your issue with the French, if making judgements of people based upon their national origins or other stereotypes were a crime, you would be easily convicted, yourself, and the inquisition would never end.
And don't give me any wordy responses because I've lost the patience to read anymore of your posts.
Sorry, but your simplistic world of stereotypes and one-word answers implying biases and misunderstandings is not one I choose to live in or conform to. Derserving consequences is not the same as being at fault, but the difference can be difficult to comprehend in cases of extreme stupidity of the person misbehaving, especially when the victim failed to learn from previous experiences and interactions.
If you make the connection between that discussion and the present one. You are changing the subject unless you are somehow including rape in your unfriendly behaviors. I would call it a crime instead. What has that got to do with someone visiting France repeatedly and not having a clue why dressing like an American bum would not give them the best experience there.
Were you raped there? If so, then that is truly a different discussion, and I could imagine that the strong lingering memories would make you hate the French, just as someone visiting New York or any other place might be justifiably irrational and make generalizations about all New Yorkers.
You were raped by the French, as well?
I live on a pier which is the single closest appartment building to NYC that is still in NJ. I don't get to NYC very often, but when I do, I am usually lost if I'm travelling by foot. I have asked for directions a gazillion times and the worst thing I have gotten was a few people pretending not to hear me (they probably thought I was a bum, which is debatible).
So you think being mistakable for a bum makes you acceptable in France? You are wrong. Different societies look at different things, and it depends upon who you try to interact with as well. Get something besides a printed T-shirt and jeans.
But seriously... keep bringing up Iraq and the prisoner abuse. The next time the Germans invade France we'll be supplying the bombs...
That is exactly why I brought it up. The hyper-nationalistic attitude, exhibited by the original post is exactly what I believe makes someone appear to people to be an ugly American to be spit on. You being rejected on every visit is no accident but an attitude which they stereotype as American because it sticks out like a sore thumb, giving all Americans a bad name, even though not all Americans are that way. You can't have it both ways hating the French and blaming them in a few superficial encounters for not accepting you without any attempt on your part to try to think what they feel and think.
While the present-day American government might well desire to make an alliance with the Germany of the 1930's and 1940's, the Germany of today has been well-trained by the occupying forces to be pacifist, and is much more closely aligned with France and Europe than with the US, but I suppose you can always hope for another Hitler.
If your wardrobe does not contain any decent clothes, I would suggest a new wardrobe before travelling anywhere. I did not have to buy new clothes to fit in there.
I am sure you would find enough people in New York (comparable to Paris in many ways) that would sooner spit than talk to someone behaving rude and / or touristy.
Other cultures should be more tolerant of visiting Americans. Don't people know they abuse Americans in the Texas prisons the same way they do in Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo Bay. Why shouldn't they be permitted to behave as they like wherever they are occupying, without regard to anyone else's values and feelings.
American tourists tend to behave with extreme stupidity in France as in other places.
I have travelled on business to France including visits to Paris many times. I do not speak a word of French, but I have never been treated poorly by French, and have had a lot of fun there, even when I politely ask for help in English.
If people can tell by your dress and behavior that you are American, it is a bad start, and it is because you haven't tried to appreciate the culture there. While they may seem rude to you, if you do not adapt, you certainly seem rude to them.
Look around. See how people dress. See how people behave. Notice that in Europe generally, you don't have to open your mouth much because it is designed for international accessibility.
On my last trip to Paris, I took a party of French-speaking Americans who lived in Paris to a nice local restaurant.
They were having to translate parts of the menu and order for me. At the end, the waitress thought she was paying me the ultimate compliment, saying that the way I had behaved, she hadn't even suspected that I was American, but had thought I must be British.