Here's an idea: how about the person who did the actual work do the documentation? That way, since they know all the ins and outs, someone else doesn't have to pester them to find out how to do something and document it.
Yeah, yeah. That would be too easy and make sense. Let someone else take care of the problem because I'm too lazy.
One good reason might be that this is not effective and doesn't work. People who know all the ins and outs forget how to look at their creation with the wide eyed stare of a child that results in good documentation. They're too close to the problem. It's not easy, it doesn't make sense, and that's why it's not generally done that way, open source or otherwise.
Linux is not intended for real users. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Documentation for Linux should target the audience of developers and the audience of distribution packagers. Ordinary users should be reading the documentation for their specific distribution. Ubuntu, Red Hat, SUSE, etc. These groups are the ones responsible for delivering end user documentation.
The NT kernel was used in Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Home Server, Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and probably a few more that I forgot. When you're trying to fix your computer, are you going to read documentation on the NT kernel and expect it to be helpful?
No, of course not, obviously it's because the plural of anecdote is "data".
When someone speaks in absolutes, rather than probabilities, an anecdote is all you need. If I say "American people have a higher than average chance of being illiterate", then having one American stand up and say "Hey, I can read" doesn't disprove my statement. On the other hand, if I make a blanket statement and say "Americans are ignorant and illiterate", then having the one American who can read stand up and say "I see a car, go car go!" successfully disproves my statement.
REGULAR USERS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR REPOSITORIES.
Sorry about the caps, but all of you crazy "my linux is better than you" people need to realize this.
If you put a normal computer user in front of your linux, they will still download the "dancing bunnies" or whatever from that fishy website, even though you've told them a thousand times to "use the repo."
My mother and stepfather, in their 60s, and my daughter and niece, both under 10, they all function just fine, and have for years. Clearly, it's because they're elite hackers with mad skills or something like that.
I think you would need to use the visited property together with some random salt in the link that prevents the visited pseudo-class from being true the next time they load the page. JS would definitely be easier...
Any OS is susceptible to malware. Malware is what users explicitly run, and then it does bad things to their system. You can't secure against that, and no OS on the market today does that.
Since switching to Ubuntu, I have had no need to install weird things off the internet. I just go to Ubuntu's software repositories, and I can download thousands and thousands of pieces of software that have been tested just for my operating system. No malware, no viruses, no attention seeking software that wants to embed a brand in my brain, no nagging to buy additional products, nothing.
I consider it to be the case that my free OS does indeed protect me against malware, where proprietary offerings that cost hundreds of dollars more do not.
I wondered that myself when attempting to put dynamic effects in a myspace page. They strip out any script you put in, but they leave css alone. This is what I used:
What this is doing is taking advantage of the CSS hover selector for the anchor (link) tag to adjust the style of the span tag contained within. That span contains our large images, which are shunted way off to the left of the screen out of sight when you're not hovering over the link and are positioned on screen when you are hovering over the link. You can use this to generate quite a selection of effects if you're creative.
JavaScript uses a different type of object than you're used to. JavaScript uses prototype-based objects whereas most other languages use class-based objects. I've seen a lot of work put into developing "class-like" objects in JavaScript and I've wondered why they just didn't learn to write code using prototypes instead.
Propaganda like Murdoch's should be dropped on our head free of charge from military aircraft, the way they do in the middle east. It would show more integrity.
You feel that way because you take your faith for granted. There have been entire civilizations in history that did not have that faith, and did not separate the subjective human experience from the objective. There have been systems of human thought that considered a dream to be no more or less real than the experience of being awake. Those people would not have the capacity to even conceive that a scientific experiment might be useful, and yet they functioned for generation after generation in that fashion.
Religions, which is what you're talking about when you say faith, are software that runs in a cluster of human beings. They mutate all the time... you turn your head, there's another one popping up, the bastard stepchild of a few predecessors. Some religions will destroy the hardware they run on before they ever propagate. The Davidians, for example. Others will propagate through a population quickly, but lead that population to extinction in a few generations. A few will endure, supporting their populations growth and infecting or destroying the populations running another religion.
This is not made up airy-fairy bullshit that some simpleton believes for no reason. This is evolution at work. These old religions have demonstrated their reliability, because the people who believe in them are not dead.
The evidence indicates that the vast majority of ideas that are "modern" and "novel" and "progressive" will lead the population that embraces them to extinction.
Science and faith are intrinsically linked. You must have faith to be a scientist in the first place, because faith is what allows you to believe there is order in the universe, and that causality exists. The people who use a personification metaphor to describe the order of the universe are no different from those who use more abstracted and precise language. They still have faith that, even though we might not have a perfect understanding of (the universe/the will of god), it does indeed exist, waiting to be noticed. To not have faith is to genuinely believe that the universe is without order, and there is no point in putting food away for tomorrow, because it might turn into a carnivorous butterfly and eat you before morning anyways for all you know.
Most people do not appreciate that there is a difference between an energy source and an energy transport mechanism, and that the word "fuel" refers to the former and not the latter. Including the person who submitted this article, apparently.
Raise taxes, print more green tickets, doesn't matter one bit. Money is not wealth, money is a symbolic tool to manage the distribution of wealth.
The economy is screwed because we're reaping the rewards of generations of negative population growth. Negative population growth creates great wealth when you first implement it... all those people who were raising families now have extra free time to produce "stuff". The relative proportion of the population that are working skyrockets.
It's a few generations later, when each population is smaller than the one before and yet expects to be sustained in the same fashion despite the fact that the proportion of the population working has fallen dramatically... that's when things go to hell. Oh, and that time is now.
Things will hopefully get better, some day, for some people. But they won't get better for us. They will get worse.
You're missing the point. The point is, our civilization is going to fail, and they're throwing any shit they can at the wall in the hopes that it will stick. It won't stick, civilization will fall, the schools will close and the young men and women who are attending them will have to grow up and leave the playground behind.
Yes... I've been thinking that if I were to distribute a home aquaponics system that had some automation and was controlled by a dedicated low-end computer that had wireless networking and allowed you to supervise your food production remotely, if there was enough penetration, they could be modified via a software update to form a citizens mesh network without having to actually convince the public that they should spend money upfront to create said network. The technology is already proven, it's just a matter of getting enough units in the hands of the public.
In a truly free country, people shouldn't be forced to associate with other people that they disagree with, no?
In a truly free country, the natural association that all people have with each other is respected, and no one is ostracized or left out. In a non-free country, a few people can stick a flag in something and deny access to the rest. The mechanism by which those people are chosen is irrelevant. Birth, violence, money, irrelevant. The US achieved its power by being the least free nation on earth, where a man who is cruel and vicious enough can realize his dream to be a feudal lord. That's a great way to achieve power in the short term. Doesn't bode well for the long term health of the nation, but you leave something for the future and still have everything...
I wouldn't focus too much on the number involved -- the principle is that everyone has their price.
Is there room in your world view for the possibility that most people do not have a price, and are not for sale? Not everyone is a ravenous consumer out grubbing for every thin dime they can get their hands on... some people actually choose the businesses they patronize because they respect them and wish to support their ongoing operation.
I have always believed that if you rely on systems that cannot be entirely your own, but require the co-operation of your fellows, the only way to mitigate the vulnerability of your dependence is to work on that system with your own two hands, and to have as clear a picture of how it operates as your personal faculties permit without any barriers between yourself and the system in question.
If you are trading paper notes for electricity that "just works" and not involved in the operation of the utility, you are UTTERLY vulnerable. You have no idea what's going on, you have no idea if someone is neglecting or sabotaging the system, you are too ignorant of what's going on to recognize when someone is neglecting or sabotaging the system, you have no idea how to fix it if it stops working, and you have no idea how to recreate the system if it is necessary.
Just to be clear, no one is accusing Jed Stone of inviting Glenn Beck over to his house for a sexual liason, and no one is accusing Glenn Beck of inviting Jed Stone to his house for a sexual liason -- in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder... Why won't they deny these liasons?
Equilibrioception is the name for the sense of acceleration and the sense of angular momentum. Technically, they are two senses, with two distinct mechanisms of action. There are also thermoception, the sense of temperature, and nociception, the sense of pain, which is also actually three senses, one for skin, one for bones, one for organs.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an idea: how about the person who did the actual work do the documentation? That way, since they know all the ins and outs, someone else doesn't have to pester them to find out how to do something and document it.
Yeah, yeah. That would be too easy and make sense. Let someone else take care of the problem because I'm too lazy.
One good reason might be that this is not effective and doesn't work. People who know all the ins and outs forget how to look at their creation with the wide eyed stare of a child that results in good documentation. They're too close to the problem. It's not easy, it doesn't make sense, and that's why it's not generally done that way, open source or otherwise.
Linux is not intended for real users. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Documentation for Linux should target the audience of developers and the audience of distribution packagers. Ordinary users should be reading the documentation for their specific distribution. Ubuntu, Red Hat, SUSE, etc. These groups are the ones responsible for delivering end user documentation.
The NT kernel was used in Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Home Server, Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and probably a few more that I forgot. When you're trying to fix your computer, are you going to read documentation on the NT kernel and expect it to be helpful?
No, of course not, obviously it's because the plural of anecdote is "data".
When someone speaks in absolutes, rather than probabilities, an anecdote is all you need. If I say "American people have a higher than average chance of being illiterate", then having one American stand up and say "Hey, I can read" doesn't disprove my statement. On the other hand, if I make a blanket statement and say "Americans are ignorant and illiterate", then having the one American who can read stand up and say "I see a car, go car go!" successfully disproves my statement.
REGULAR USERS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR REPOSITORIES. Sorry about the caps, but all of you crazy "my linux is better than you" people need to realize this. If you put a normal computer user in front of your linux, they will still download the "dancing bunnies" or whatever from that fishy website, even though you've told them a thousand times to "use the repo."
My mother and stepfather, in their 60s, and my daughter and niece, both under 10, they all function just fine, and have for years. Clearly, it's because they're elite hackers with mad skills or something like that.
I think you would need to use the visited property together with some random salt in the link that prevents the visited pseudo-class from being true the next time they load the page. JS would definitely be easier...
Any OS is susceptible to malware. Malware is what users explicitly run, and then it does bad things to their system. You can't secure against that, and no OS on the market today does that.
Since switching to Ubuntu, I have had no need to install weird things off the internet. I just go to Ubuntu's software repositories, and I can download thousands and thousands of pieces of software that have been tested just for my operating system. No malware, no viruses, no attention seeking software that wants to embed a brand in my brain, no nagging to buy additional products, nothing.
I consider it to be the case that my free OS does indeed protect me against malware, where proprietary offerings that cost hundreds of dollars more do not.
How do you hide or move a DOM object in real time with css? For example how do you do this with css
/> />< / span > /> />< / span >
/> />< / span > /> />< / span >
(jquery example)
$("p").click(function () { $("p").fadeOut("slow"); });
I wondered that myself when attempting to put dynamic effects in a myspace page. They strip out any script you put in, but they leave css alone. This is what I used:
< style >
.leftthumbnail span{
position: absolute;
top: 0px;
left: -1000px;
visibility: hidden;
text-decoration: none;
}
.leftthumbnail span img{
border-width: 0;
padding: 2px;
}
.leftthumbnail:hover span{
visibility: visible;
left: 120px;
}
.rightthumbnail span{
position: absolute;
top: 0px;
right: 10000px;
visibility: hidden;
text-decoration: none;
}
.rightthumbnail span img{
border-width: 0;
padding: 2px;
}
.rightthumbnail:hover span{
visibility: visible;
right: 120px;
}
< / style >
< div style="position: absolute; top: 200px; left: 10px; width: 100px;" >
< a class="leftthumbnail" href="http://www.myspace.com" >
< img width="100" src="http://path.to.your.first/pic.jpg" border="0"
< span >< img width="400" src="http://path.to.your.first/pic.jpg"
< / a>
< a class="leftthumbnail" href="http://www.myspace.com" >
< img width="100" src="http://path.to.your.second/pic.jpg" border="0"
< span >< img width="400" src="http://path.to.your.second/pic.jpg"
< / a>
< / div>
< div style="position: absolute; top: 200px; right: 10px; width: 100px;" >
< a class="rightthumbnail" href="http://www.myspace.com" >
< img width="100" src="http://path.to.your.third/pic.jpg" border="0"
< span >< img width="400" src="http://path.to.your.third/pic.jpg"
< / a>
< a class="rightthumbnail" href="http://www.myspace.com" >
< img width="100" src="http://path.to.your.fourth/pic.jpg" border="0"
< span >< img width="400" src="http://path.to.your.fourth/pic.jpg"
< / a>
< / div>
What this is doing is taking advantage of the CSS hover selector for the anchor (link) tag to adjust the style of the span tag contained within. That span contains our large images, which are shunted way off to the left of the screen out of sight when you're not hovering over the link and are positioned on screen when you are hovering over the link. You can use this to generate quite a selection of effects if you're creative.
JavaScript uses a different type of object than you're used to. JavaScript uses prototype-based objects whereas most other languages use class-based objects. I've seen a lot of work put into developing "class-like" objects in JavaScript and I've wondered why they just didn't learn to write code using prototypes instead.
Too educated to learn.
Propaganda like Murdoch's should be dropped on our head free of charge from military aircraft, the way they do in the middle east. It would show more integrity.
You feel that way because you take your faith for granted. There have been entire civilizations in history that did not have that faith, and did not separate the subjective human experience from the objective. There have been systems of human thought that considered a dream to be no more or less real than the experience of being awake. Those people would not have the capacity to even conceive that a scientific experiment might be useful, and yet they functioned for generation after generation in that fashion.
Religions, which is what you're talking about when you say faith, are software that runs in a cluster of human beings. They mutate all the time... you turn your head, there's another one popping up, the bastard stepchild of a few predecessors. Some religions will destroy the hardware they run on before they ever propagate. The Davidians, for example. Others will propagate through a population quickly, but lead that population to extinction in a few generations. A few will endure, supporting their populations growth and infecting or destroying the populations running another religion.
This is not made up airy-fairy bullshit that some simpleton believes for no reason. This is evolution at work. These old religions have demonstrated their reliability, because the people who believe in them are not dead.
The evidence indicates that the vast majority of ideas that are "modern" and "novel" and "progressive" will lead the population that embraces them to extinction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
Science and faith are intrinsically linked. You must have faith to be a scientist in the first place, because faith is what allows you to believe there is order in the universe, and that causality exists. The people who use a personification metaphor to describe the order of the universe are no different from those who use more abstracted and precise language. They still have faith that, even though we might not have a perfect understanding of (the universe/the will of god), it does indeed exist, waiting to be noticed. To not have faith is to genuinely believe that the universe is without order, and there is no point in putting food away for tomorrow, because it might turn into a carnivorous butterfly and eat you before morning anyways for all you know.
Personally, I would rather use an abacus.
Most people do not appreciate that there is a difference between an energy source and an energy transport mechanism, and that the word "fuel" refers to the former and not the latter. Including the person who submitted this article, apparently.
Raise taxes, print more green tickets, doesn't matter one bit. Money is not wealth, money is a symbolic tool to manage the distribution of wealth.
The economy is screwed because we're reaping the rewards of generations of negative population growth. Negative population growth creates great wealth when you first implement it... all those people who were raising families now have extra free time to produce "stuff". The relative proportion of the population that are working skyrockets.
It's a few generations later, when each population is smaller than the one before and yet expects to be sustained in the same fashion despite the fact that the proportion of the population working has fallen dramatically... that's when things go to hell. Oh, and that time is now.
Things will hopefully get better, some day, for some people. But they won't get better for us. They will get worse.
You're missing the point. The point is, our civilization is going to fail, and they're throwing any shit they can at the wall in the hopes that it will stick. It won't stick, civilization will fall, the schools will close and the young men and women who are attending them will have to grow up and leave the playground behind.
It's been around for quite a while actually...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing#Criticism
Yes... I've been thinking that if I were to distribute a home aquaponics system that had some automation and was controlled by a dedicated low-end computer that had wireless networking and allowed you to supervise your food production remotely, if there was enough penetration, they could be modified via a software update to form a citizens mesh network without having to actually convince the public that they should spend money upfront to create said network. The technology is already proven, it's just a matter of getting enough units in the hands of the public.
In a truly free country, people shouldn't be forced to associate with other people that they disagree with, no?
In a truly free country, the natural association that all people have with each other is respected, and no one is ostracized or left out. In a non-free country, a few people can stick a flag in something and deny access to the rest. The mechanism by which those people are chosen is irrelevant. Birth, violence, money, irrelevant. The US achieved its power by being the least free nation on earth, where a man who is cruel and vicious enough can realize his dream to be a feudal lord. That's a great way to achieve power in the short term. Doesn't bode well for the long term health of the nation, but you leave something for the future and still have everything...
I second this. F-Spot is terrible. Makes a total clusterfucked mess of your filing system. I've hated it for years.
I wouldn't focus too much on the number involved -- the principle is that everyone has their price.
Is there room in your world view for the possibility that most people do not have a price, and are not for sale? Not everyone is a ravenous consumer out grubbing for every thin dime they can get their hands on... some people actually choose the businesses they patronize because they respect them and wish to support their ongoing operation.
Sorry, that might have been going a bit far. But I can't help wonder.. why doesn't he deny it?
I deny the allegations.
I have always believed that if you rely on systems that cannot be entirely your own, but require the co-operation of your fellows, the only way to mitigate the vulnerability of your dependence is to work on that system with your own two hands, and to have as clear a picture of how it operates as your personal faculties permit without any barriers between yourself and the system in question.
If you are trading paper notes for electricity that "just works" and not involved in the operation of the utility, you are UTTERLY vulnerable. You have no idea what's going on, you have no idea if someone is neglecting or sabotaging the system, you are too ignorant of what's going on to recognize when someone is neglecting or sabotaging the system, you have no idea how to fix it if it stops working, and you have no idea how to recreate the system if it is necessary.
How much more vulnerable can you get than that?
Just to be clear, no one is accusing Jed Stone of inviting Glenn Beck over to his house for a sexual liason, and no one is accusing Glenn Beck of inviting Jed Stone to his house for a sexual liason -- in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder ... Why won't they deny these liasons?
Equilibrioception is the name for the sense of acceleration and the sense of angular momentum. Technically, they are two senses, with two distinct mechanisms of action. There are also thermoception, the sense of temperature, and nociception, the sense of pain, which is also actually three senses, one for skin, one for bones, one for organs.