I think it's a foregone conclusion that there's a reset jumper somewhere on the MacBook. You and I not knowing where it is doesn't make it any less so.
Well, the odds of winning a 6/49-type lottery are about 1 in 14 million. Though I think SCO are a bunch of fools, I think their odds of surviving are greater than that. Sure, drastic things would have to happen, but it's still more likely than winning the lottery.
If I accidentally hit the next track button it is a right pain to get back where I was in a 50+ minute recording.
Thankfully, the scroll wheel doesn't do that. That's what we were talking about. I agree it'd be nice to be able to disable the previous/next track buttons, though.
Actually, I haven't noticed that behavior on my iPod, but it's probably something they've tweaked over the years. For all I know, it may vary on individual iPods (not just within models) as well. But I have no problem believing it could be wrong on other models.
Yes, I am a software developer, and I've seen how they solve it: Either acceleration (which I mentioned, but you ignored because it didn't match your argument) or 800 button pushes (which I also mentioned, and you seem to have fixed your eyes on).
Trivial to prove wrong. You can overshoot with either. With the scroll wheel (only), you can slow as you approach what you want. The handle on a gas pump is a better analogy, really. Sure, you can (and frequently will) overshoot, but it will be by only a small amount. And unlikely a gas pump, you can rewind. Compare that to a button, where you'll end up several hundred songs past if it supports any kind of acceleration, or with 800 pushes if it doesn't.
Actually, yes, you can say with certainty that the scroll wheel is better.
Why? Because the operator can move her finger slower when she approaches the song she wants. The scroll wheel can detect the speed the finger is moving at. In short, not only can you accelerate as the operator continues to spin the wheel, but when she starts to slow how fast she's spinning the wheel, you can detect that and respond appropriately. The finger speed is something the operator is aware of. If the screen scrolls too fast, she'll slow down. If it scrolls too slowly, she'll speed up.
With a button, in the best case you have a button that can sense not only if it is being touched, but how hard it is being touched. The feedback isn't as direct, though. There's a reason the steering wheel in a car hasn't been replaced with two buttons, and the gas and brake with two more each. (Not to mention, most buttons have only two states. The really good ones have three states - off, light touch, heavy touch.)
Remember the labels start with the assumption that all music on an iPod that isn't from the music store is illegal. Label complains, threatens to not permit Apple to distribute their music. If Apple will lose more money if the label pulls out than if they do whatever stupid thing the label is asking for, they're probably obligated to do it.
If you want to be treated fairly by a publicly trade company, you'd better be a source of revenue for them somehow or other.
Generally, I let the ads in for exactly this reason. Most of them don't bother me anyway. It isn't like I'm EVER going to click on one of them, but if it makes the web site owner happy somehow, that's cool with me.
However, it's gotten to the point where I've blocked Facebook's flyers, which border on soft porn in the Vancouver, BC area. The truth is that I'm an adult. I don't hide in the bushes leafing through porn I found in someone's trash can. I don't oggle the lingerie section on the Sears catalog. I don't search the web for free porn videos. I've grown up. One day, my children are going to be watching what's on my screen and asking questions, and the right time for me to start making sure my screen is clear of soft porn is today. If web sites aren't going to realize that, they're going to have to have their ads blocked, and I'm not going to feel guilty about it. Not one smidgeon.
I have to agree with Jugalator; you are trolling. I'd also add that you're either ignorant or ignoring certain facts: Fogcreek's source is available. So what exactly do you expect? Maybe a big fat cheque made out to the maintainers?
No. It's enough that they're complying with the license. Either following the minimum requirements of a license is good enough, or the person releasing the code picked the wrong license. In the one case, there's no blame to be assigned. In the other case, the person releasing the code can only blame his or herself. Even if they ask you to help them whining that it's unfair, you shouldn't, but you especially shouldn't start whining when they're happy.
Complaining about people following the license just increases the emotional -- but not financial -- cost of dealing with open source. It gives people a bad taste. It gives a bad reputation to the community as a whole. Your complaints make the original developers look bad. (Compare that to, say, Fogcreek, which has managed to make the developers look really good.)
In short, please stop trying to help the open source community by pretending to represent us while simultaneously contradicting against what we've put in writing. The GPL's license terms are pretty clear, and if I release my code under that -- well, that's (probably) what I meant to do.
Unfortunately, opening the source for a product is not so easy as prefixing each file with a boiler plate license and uploading it somewhere. There's no guarantee the legacy code can be opened - Qualcom may not have rights to release in source form all of their code.
Facebook used to be a place where you could choose how safe you wanted it. However, lately I've been getting a constant barrage of scam advertisements using semi-naked women that are completely unrelated to what's being advertised.
Example 1: Girl wearing skimpy black underwear. Caption beneath is "Earn $4,000-$5,000 a week from home!" Unless the job is making sweet, sweet love to that girl, the picture has nothing to do with the ad.
Example 2: Girl getting out of a pool with a wet t-shirt. Caption beneath is "t-shirts by *" and the url of the company. I know when I'm looking for t-shirts, the first thing I do is consider how it will look soaked and plastered against a nice rack.
That's just two examples. It's annoying enough that I set up a style sheet with a little css hack to block the ads. I'm not opposed to Facebook running ads, but I've long since grown out of hiding in the bushes reading someone else's discarded pr0n or the Sears catalog. Does Facebook really cater to 8 year olds looking for soft pr0n?
I think the reason such spell checkers don't exist already is fairly simple -- everyone just assumes they're impossible, and doesn't try. Couple that with the fact that a mediocre quality one would be so annoying as to be worse than useless, and you have a recipe for a program that won't get written. I don't think either of those would have to be the case if someone sufficiently clever decided to attack the problem, though.
I think one of the flawed core assumptions is actually "a mediocre quality one would be worse than useless." Rather, one that generated a lot of false errors would be worse than useless. One that missed some misspellings - even, say, up to 90% - well, it would still be better than not having anything at all. I'm sure we could get better accuracy than 10% relatively quickly. The trick would be growing the accuracy from there.
Actually, I've read admissions that they grew the membership some to try to compensate for Microsoft's bought votes.
Look, I've no doubt that the vote should be "no." I also have no doubt that the "yes" side bought more votes (20+) than the "no" side (5-6). I just see from the wording that the one is considered wrong (buying to suppress a competitive standard), whereas the other isn't (in this excerpt, anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's a foregone conclusion that there's a reset jumper somewhere on the MacBook. You and I not knowing where it is doesn't make it any less so.
Well, the odds of winning a 6/49-type lottery are about 1 in 14 million. Though I think SCO are a bunch of fools, I think their odds of surviving are greater than that. Sure, drastic things would have to happen, but it's still more likely than winning the lottery.
Actually, "public area" is probably the best option, thanks.
Actually, that doesn't prevent a kid from buying a PS2.
Oh. That would look pretty sweet on a resumé. Only add a bit:
"Knows where SCO's skeletons are buried. Will apply to Microsoft next."
The funny part is if it drops a little more, it will be such a bargain that it'll be at least as good a value as a lottery ticket...
Okay, you've convinced me. I'm off to purchase some SCO stock... it's such a bargain! :)
Seriously, what about the other half? Do they have some sort of personal reality distortion field?
Thankfully, the scroll wheel doesn't do that. That's what we were talking about. I agree it'd be nice to be able to disable the previous/next track buttons, though.
I see. Short of removing the computer entirely, how do you suggest a parent implement a game ban for a failing student?
Aha! I'm with you now.
Actually, I haven't noticed that behavior on my iPod, but it's probably something they've tweaked over the years. For all I know, it may vary on individual iPods (not just within models) as well. But I have no problem believing it could be wrong on other models.
Yes, I am a software developer, and I've seen how they solve it: Either acceleration (which I mentioned, but you ignored because it didn't match your argument) or 800 button pushes (which I also mentioned, and you seem to have fixed your eyes on).
Trivial to prove wrong. You can overshoot with either. With the scroll wheel (only), you can slow as you approach what you want. The handle on a gas pump is a better analogy, really. Sure, you can (and frequently will) overshoot, but it will be by only a small amount. And unlikely a gas pump, you can rewind. Compare that to a button, where you'll end up several hundred songs past if it supports any kind of acceleration, or with 800 pushes if it doesn't.
Actually, yes, you can say with certainty that the scroll wheel is better.
Why? Because the operator can move her finger slower when she approaches the song she wants. The scroll wheel can detect the speed the finger is moving at. In short, not only can you accelerate as the operator continues to spin the wheel, but when she starts to slow how fast she's spinning the wheel, you can detect that and respond appropriately. The finger speed is something the operator is aware of. If the screen scrolls too fast, she'll slow down. If it scrolls too slowly, she'll speed up.
With a button, in the best case you have a button that can sense not only if it is being touched, but how hard it is being touched. The feedback isn't as direct, though. There's a reason the steering wheel in a car hasn't been replaced with two buttons, and the gas and brake with two more each. (Not to mention, most buttons have only two states. The really good ones have three states - off, light touch, heavy touch.)
Remember the labels start with the assumption that all music on an iPod that isn't from the music store is illegal. Label complains, threatens to not permit Apple to distribute their music. If Apple will lose more money if the label pulls out than if they do whatever stupid thing the label is asking for, they're probably obligated to do it.
If you want to be treated fairly by a publicly trade company, you'd better be a source of revenue for them somehow or other.
The summaries don't add much? Really? How about an explanation of what Tor actually is? Ars explains, Egerstad doesn't.
Hardly. Unlike you, I'd never hold strangers responsible for guessing what I want without me telling them.
Generally, I let the ads in for exactly this reason. Most of them don't bother me anyway. It isn't like I'm EVER going to click on one of them, but if it makes the web site owner happy somehow, that's cool with me.
However, it's gotten to the point where I've blocked Facebook's flyers, which border on soft porn in the Vancouver, BC area. The truth is that I'm an adult. I don't hide in the bushes leafing through porn I found in someone's trash can. I don't oggle the lingerie section on the Sears catalog. I don't search the web for free porn videos. I've grown up. One day, my children are going to be watching what's on my screen and asking questions, and the right time for me to start making sure my screen is clear of soft porn is today. If web sites aren't going to realize that, they're going to have to have their ads blocked, and I'm not going to feel guilty about it. Not one smidgeon.
I have to agree with Jugalator; you are trolling. I'd also add that you're either ignorant or ignoring certain facts: Fogcreek's source is available. So what exactly do you expect? Maybe a big fat cheque made out to the maintainers?
No. It's enough that they're complying with the license. Either following the minimum requirements of a license is good enough, or the person releasing the code picked the wrong license. In the one case, there's no blame to be assigned. In the other case, the person releasing the code can only blame his or herself. Even if they ask you to help them whining that it's unfair, you shouldn't, but you especially shouldn't start whining when they're happy.
Complaining about people following the license just increases the emotional -- but not financial -- cost of dealing with open source. It gives people a bad taste. It gives a bad reputation to the community as a whole. Your complaints make the original developers look bad. (Compare that to, say, Fogcreek, which has managed to make the developers look really good.)
In short, please stop trying to help the open source community by pretending to represent us while simultaneously contradicting against what we've put in writing. The GPL's license terms are pretty clear, and if I release my code under that -- well, that's (probably) what I meant to do.
Any version of iTunes prior to video being added. I have no idea what the relative size was, but it always felt more sensible and smaller than WinAmp.
After video was added, I still wouldn't categorize iTunes as bloatware, but it no longer *felt* slim.
Unfortunately, opening the source for a product is not so easy as prefixing each file with a boiler plate license and uploading it somewhere. There's no guarantee the legacy code can be opened - Qualcom may not have rights to release in source form all of their code.
"You have been killed by LinuxR00ls."
Facebook used to be a place where you could choose how safe you wanted it. However, lately I've been getting a constant barrage of scam advertisements using semi-naked women that are completely unrelated to what's being advertised.
Example 1: Girl wearing skimpy black underwear. Caption beneath is "Earn $4,000-$5,000 a week from home!"
Unless the job is making sweet, sweet love to that girl, the picture has nothing to do with the ad.
Example 2: Girl getting out of a pool with a wet t-shirt. Caption beneath is "t-shirts by *" and the url of the company.
I know when I'm looking for t-shirts, the first thing I do is consider how it will look soaked and plastered against a nice rack.
That's just two examples. It's annoying enough that I set up a style sheet with a little css hack to block the ads. I'm not opposed to Facebook running ads, but I've long since grown out of hiding in the bushes reading someone else's discarded pr0n or the Sears catalog. Does Facebook really cater to 8 year olds looking for soft pr0n?
I think one of the flawed core assumptions is actually "a mediocre quality one would be worse than useless." Rather, one that generated a lot of false errors would be worse than useless. One that missed some misspellings - even, say, up to 90% - well, it would still be better than not having anything at all. I'm sure we could get better accuracy than 10% relatively quickly. The trick would be growing the accuracy from there.
Actually, I've read admissions that they grew the membership some to try to compensate for Microsoft's bought votes.
Look, I've no doubt that the vote should be "no." I also have no doubt that the "yes" side bought more votes (20+) than the "no" side (5-6). I just see from the wording that the one is considered wrong (buying to suppress a competitive standard), whereas the other isn't (in this excerpt, anyway).