Right, I meant the human process rather than the tech side of things, which as designed was about as good as it could be.
As for the double-decker idea, it wouldn't have had much benefit. Various sites, including the Bay Area after the '89 quake which gave us a unique there one day, gone the next comparison, have shown that (contrary to "common sense") that doubling of lanes does not significantly reduce congestion. Too many other factors at work.
Alaska is a net taker in Federal taxation, not a contributor. As you likely know, AK has no state income or sales tax. It collects funds solely via it's non-renewable resource grants. It is politically popular (and, in a vacuum, the right thing--but we're not talking about a vacuum) that as much as possible (slightly over $1 Billion these days) in "dividend" checks to residents, and use copious federal money to make up the difference.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you are going to characterize the argument against a large freeway running through the middle of a city as: "Oh, it was an EYESORE! boo hoo!"
It's much more than an eyesore, and while the execution of the project sucked it is still worthwhile and should be done in every downtown... in a saner manner.
I wanted to like Camino. I used it for a year after Safari finally drove me away with two things:
1. No right-click/ctrl-click "save as..." for saving to a location other than your default download dir. 2. Something else having to do with mishandling of MIME types that I can't remember exactly anymore. 3. Safari's popup blocking has *never* let something through for me. Not a single time. Things got around Camino's all the time.
Camino was just as irritating. Stalled out and crashed for more often than Safari (which does so basically never). Had much less compliant CSS rendering, causing well-formed sites to behave poorly--beyond unacceptable. Also less stable javascript engine (so a lot of the silly-but-semi-useful AJAX sites didn't work right).
I tried the Safari 3 beta and my problems are addressed so.... see ya, Camino, been not-so-nice to know you.
(At least it's better than Firefox, which is a total fscking wreck that I only recommend to people on Windows because at least it's not IE.)
Ohhhhh, I see. You're talking about going out and getting other software and installing it on your phone, which 95% of people will never do, as opposed to working software actually being supplied with the phone.
See the numbers in a post below, and the ensuing discussion.
I don't like Clinton, but I like accuracy, and claiming he was the biggest tax increaser in history is simply, again, a crazy wingnut lie. You may not be a crazy wingnut, and I didn't call you one. I just pointed out that you are, whether intentionally or out of undue credulity towards something you heard somewhere once, repeating a crazy wingnut lie. A talking point, if you will, and a false one.
I disagree with part of your conclusions. What do you mean by "overall taxation rates"? I'd assert that the best measure of that concept is the median number, which you included.
You'll notice that the drop in those median taxation rates were far greater under Clinton than any other the others listed (or any others historically, for that matter, with the possible exception of JFK's post-WWII/Korea cuts can't remember for sure offhand).
Measuring how high taxes are by looking SOLELY at the highest marginal rate, which another poster was trying, is a classic wildly dishonest fasco-communist-in-free-marketer's-clothing (ie Libertarian) mode of argument. By itself (particularly without knowing what income level it is pegged to, how that compares to the overall income curve, etc) it is the smallest, least relevant bit of info in our contemporary taxation picture.
It's doubly dishonest because, while the top marginal rate went up under Clinton, the amount one had to be making to fall under it increased by over *three* times.
In terms of median rate, the only accurate measure for the broad categorization of overall tax cut vs increase, Clinton lowered taxes tremendously. People love to lionize Reagan for his "largest"-at-the-time tax cuts, when in fact they were cut only for the richest, raised for most, and still only brought the median rate back to where it had been before his largest-ever tax *increase*.
You realize, of course, that I'm ranting at the gp and on the general partisan lies, as opposed to at you. Thank you for the numbers.:)
In my eyes, you can't beat buttons that one can actually feel, enabling eyes-free operation.
It's understandable that you feel this way, but research shows that in this case it's basically irrelevant. You think you're using tactile feedback from the keys for locating them, but what you're really using is muscle memory of how the device sits relative to your fingers.
In a larger view, there's also this: out of all the man-hours spent using keypads on mobile devices, approximately 0.0000001% of them are spent actually no-look typing, and an even smaller percentage are times that it's a safe, good idea to be trying to operate the phone to begin with.
Also, with good enough voice and other input methods, this will hardly be an issue in the car (which is the unfortunate, dangerous situation that most people are talking about when they mention no-look keypad use).
Clinton oversaw the largest tax CUTS in the history of the country. You're trying to paint an utterly false one-sided picture. It's a sleazy lie and I bet you know it.
Unless you have some evidence that I'm not aware of, you're just wrong.
As ranked by Interbrand, MS has the #2 most "valuable" brand in the world, for values of "valuable" == a formula invented by Interbrand that has some merit on its own terms but is emphatically NOT equivalent to "recognizability".
No, but since you specified OS X, there's really only way to take that. You intended to draw a contrast to systems which are configurable, in some way, that OS X isn't. You may have been talking about something besides Windows, fair enough. In which case, plug that system into my question and repeat.;)
I'm just looking for specific examples, is all. For example, someone else in this thread claimed you can't change your shell... was he kidding? You can change it the same way you can on any *nix system in the world, or through a GUI (NetInfo Manager) if you really want to. I'm just... wondering, because I've run into very few things that I can't configure in a straightforward manner. There have been about three things for which I've resorted to plist writes in the Terminal, but only about three--and they were insignificant things.
It can work fine from the user's perspective if the setup is simple. It can work fine from the admin's perspective if there are very few users and simple mail structures.
Any variance from any of that, and kiss it good bye.
Show me some numbers that back up your claim that most "enterprise" systems are not POP or IMAP. Define what you mean by "enterprise".
Most of the world runs on POP or IMAP, including at the "enterprise". In the big scheme of things, the number who actively use Exchange, particularly of the BES variety, to integrate messaging/calendar/contacts is vanishingly small. Vanishingly.
Of that vanishingly small number, they are just as well served by IMAP, any of a number of "Enterprise" calendaring systems that work with IMAP, and a non-brain-dead mobile IMAP client that supports IDLE.
This isn't rocket science. BES/Exchange is a dopey status symbol. The integration is FAR from slick, particularly if you're not already an MS-only shop. And if you are, you've already shown that you don't get the "enterprise", aka, being an actual business that makes real money, because you're throwing away millions for nothing to keep that crap running. "Enterprise" is a buzzword for "a few people at the top of a sprawling company who spend all their time in meetings".
You're totally nuts, and have obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I dare you to give me examples of things you can customize on Windows which you can't on a Mac. I dare you. I'll be waiting...
Exhange's IMAP support is totally and unredeemably broken. Either intentionally or carelessly, they give it short shrift to MAPI because they'd rather you use the latter.
At our ~100k active user institution, we did about a month-long study wherein we discovered that Exchange was the primary load factor on our systems. It has orders of magnitude more impact on the server side than any sane IMAP client, due to brilliant maneuvers like hitting every. single. folder. on many operations, including a simple "check mail" (you have to go out of your way to only hit the inbox).
Its LDAP support is also bad and wrong, and will not function with a standards-compliant LDAP server without shims and hacks.
It's just trash unless you're using Exchange, and in that case it scales at approximately 1/40th the effectiveness of IMAP.
People who are "enterprise"-centric are hilarious.
IMAP servers have done 'push' for a decade or more. It's called the IDLE command, and I haven't seen a server or (non-web) client that doesn't support it for a long, long time. The rest of us have been happily using it while the miniscule "enterprise" market (which consists of a few incestuous clueless droids making up a very small percentage of the overall market, whereas most businesses are somewhat smarter) stumbles around pissing themselves over MS/RIM's proprietary "solution" that requires more horsepower to support 200 users than IMAP needs to support 200,000. Literally.
Just hilarious. I hope you all enjoy wacking off while everyone else in the world is getting work done.:)
Welcome to the real world, of people who recognize that the Beatles are music for the masses "claptrap". They had some good songs that went a little further than the strict norm, but certainly not a lot further.
Anyone who tells you they were groundbreaking is lying to you. They were popular enough that they could bring the innovations of others, extremely watered-down, to the great white mass.
This is moronic. The very large majority of those permutations will be nonsensical, and a vanishingly small percentage will have any coherent bearing on a given subject.
And now that I've listened to a lot of other music, and put in more time reading stuff that isn't sci-fi, lyrics like:
All wound up
On the edge
Terrified
Sleep disturbed
Restless mind
Petrified
Are just the same old, same old dumb pop claptrap with different music (that's mostly wanky--yes you can play scales fast, I don't care--I want something more interesting). That could be a song by Linkin Park or Motley Crue or Donna Summer. Quite literally. There's nothing smart about it.
Also, a helping hand to you: anytime you claim someone doesn't have the "IQ" to "get" an art form, you've instantly lost (and you're probably a lot less smart than you think). I've known a lot more very smart people who like anything else but prog/powermetal.
Somehow given prevailing attitudes on Slashdot, I find it unsurprising that there's a contigent who love stuff like Dream Theater that most of us metalheads grew out of sometime in our late teens. It seems like really, really smart music.... when you don't know anything...
Slashdot sucks at threading and indentation so I'm not sure which bit you're responding to, me or someone else, but either way I'm with you on the content of this post.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Right, I meant the human process rather than the tech side of things, which as designed was about as good as it could be.
As for the double-decker idea, it wouldn't have had much benefit. Various sites, including the Bay Area after the '89 quake which gave us a unique there one day, gone the next comparison, have shown that (contrary to "common sense") that doubling of lanes does not significantly reduce congestion. Too many other factors at work.
Alaska is a net taker in Federal taxation, not a contributor. As you likely know, AK has no state income or sales tax. It collects funds solely via it's non-renewable resource grants. It is politically popular (and, in a vacuum, the right thing--but we're not talking about a vacuum) that as much as possible (slightly over $1 Billion these days) in "dividend" checks to residents, and use copious federal money to make up the difference.
In short, you're full of it.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you are going to characterize the argument against a large freeway running through the middle of a city as: "Oh, it was an EYESORE! boo hoo!"
It's much more than an eyesore, and while the execution of the project sucked it is still worthwhile and should be done in every downtown... in a saner manner.
Number 3 was supposed to go into the "problems with Camino" section, not the "problems with Safari 2" section. D'oh.
I wanted to like Camino. I used it for a year after Safari finally drove me away with two things:
1. No right-click/ctrl-click "save as..." for saving to a location other than your default download dir.
2. Something else having to do with mishandling of MIME types that I can't remember exactly anymore.
3. Safari's popup blocking has *never* let something through for me. Not a single time. Things got around Camino's all the time.
Camino was just as irritating. Stalled out and crashed for more often than Safari (which does so basically never). Had much less compliant CSS rendering, causing well-formed sites to behave poorly--beyond unacceptable. Also less stable javascript engine (so a lot of the silly-but-semi-useful AJAX sites didn't work right).
I tried the Safari 3 beta and my problems are addressed so.... see ya, Camino, been not-so-nice to know you.
(At least it's better than Firefox, which is a total fscking wreck that I only recommend to people on Windows because at least it's not IE.)
Ohhhhh, I see. You're talking about going out and getting other software and installing it on your phone, which 95% of people will never do, as opposed to working software actually being supplied with the phone.
That's more or less the point.
Note, again, that under Clinton the median tax rate declined every year, and by a huge percentage over the course of his term.
If we're going to insist on talking in such broad terms as overal tax burden, that would seem to be the only relevant number.
See the numbers in a post below, and the ensuing discussion.
I don't like Clinton, but I like accuracy, and claiming he was the biggest tax increaser in history is simply, again, a crazy wingnut lie. You may not be a crazy wingnut, and I didn't call you one. I just pointed out that you are, whether intentionally or out of undue credulity towards something you heard somewhere once, repeating a crazy wingnut lie. A talking point, if you will, and a false one.
I disagree with part of your conclusions. What do you mean by "overall taxation rates"? I'd assert that the best measure of that concept is the median number, which you included.
:)
You'll notice that the drop in those median taxation rates were far greater under Clinton than any other the others listed (or any others historically, for that matter, with the possible exception of JFK's post-WWII/Korea cuts can't remember for sure offhand).
Measuring how high taxes are by looking SOLELY at the highest marginal rate, which another poster was trying, is a classic wildly dishonest fasco-communist-in-free-marketer's-clothing (ie Libertarian) mode of argument. By itself (particularly without knowing what income level it is pegged to, how that compares to the overall income curve, etc) it is the smallest, least relevant bit of info in our contemporary taxation picture.
It's doubly dishonest because, while the top marginal rate went up under Clinton, the amount one had to be making to fall under it increased by over *three* times.
In terms of median rate, the only accurate measure for the broad categorization of overall tax cut vs increase, Clinton lowered taxes tremendously. People love to lionize Reagan for his "largest"-at-the-time tax cuts, when in fact they were cut only for the richest, raised for most, and still only brought the median rate back to where it had been before his largest-ever tax *increase*.
You realize, of course, that I'm ranting at the gp and on the general partisan lies, as opposed to at you. Thank you for the numbers.
It's understandable that you feel this way, but research shows that in this case it's basically irrelevant. You think you're using tactile feedback from the keys for locating them, but what you're really using is muscle memory of how the device sits relative to your fingers.
In a larger view, there's also this: out of all the man-hours spent using keypads on mobile devices, approximately 0.0000001% of them are spent actually no-look typing, and an even smaller percentage are times that it's a safe, good idea to be trying to operate the phone to begin with.
Also, with good enough voice and other input methods, this will hardly be an issue in the car (which is the unfortunate, dangerous situation that most people are talking about when they mention no-look keypad use).
You must be kidding. Nokia does this better than others, but it's still utter trash compared to a real browser. Just not... even... close.
Crazy wingnut lies.
Clinton oversaw the largest tax CUTS in the history of the country. You're trying to paint an utterly false one-sided picture. It's a sleazy lie and I bet you know it.
What, specifically, do you like about Penn politically? Everything I've heard from him is Darwinist fascism of the classic early 20th century mode.
Unless you have some evidence that I'm not aware of, you're just wrong.
As ranked by Interbrand, MS has the #2 most "valuable" brand in the world, for values of "valuable" == a formula invented by Interbrand that has some merit on its own terms but is emphatically NOT equivalent to "recognizability".
No, but since you specified OS X, there's really only way to take that. You intended to draw a contrast to systems which are configurable, in some way, that OS X isn't. You may have been talking about something besides Windows, fair enough. In which case, plug that system into my question and repeat. ;)
I'm just looking for specific examples, is all. For example, someone else in this thread claimed you can't change your shell... was he kidding? You can change it the same way you can on any *nix system in the world, or through a GUI (NetInfo Manager) if you really want to. I'm just... wondering, because I've run into very few things that I can't configure in a straightforward manner. There have been about three things for which I've resorted to plist writes in the Terminal, but only about three--and they were insignificant things.
It can work fine from the user's perspective if the setup is simple. It can work fine from the admin's perspective if there are very few users and simple mail structures.
Any variance from any of that, and kiss it good bye.
Parochial, that's rich. :)
Show me some numbers that back up your claim that most "enterprise" systems are not POP or IMAP. Define what you mean by "enterprise".
Most of the world runs on POP or IMAP, including at the "enterprise". In the big scheme of things, the number who actively use Exchange, particularly of the BES variety, to integrate messaging/calendar/contacts is vanishingly small. Vanishingly.
Of that vanishingly small number, they are just as well served by IMAP, any of a number of "Enterprise" calendaring systems that work with IMAP, and a non-brain-dead mobile IMAP client that supports IDLE.
This isn't rocket science. BES/Exchange is a dopey status symbol. The integration is FAR from slick, particularly if you're not already an MS-only shop. And if you are, you've already shown that you don't get the "enterprise", aka, being an actual business that makes real money, because you're throwing away millions for nothing to keep that crap running. "Enterprise" is a buzzword for "a few people at the top of a sprawling company who spend all their time in meetings".
You're totally nuts, and have obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I dare you to give me examples of things you can customize on Windows which you can't on a Mac. I dare you. I'll be waiting...
Exhange's IMAP support is totally and unredeemably broken. Either intentionally or carelessly, they give it short shrift to MAPI because they'd rather you use the latter.
At our ~100k active user institution, we did about a month-long study wherein we discovered that Exchange was the primary load factor on our systems. It has orders of magnitude more impact on the server side than any sane IMAP client, due to brilliant maneuvers like hitting every. single. folder. on many operations, including a simple "check mail" (you have to go out of your way to only hit the inbox).
Its LDAP support is also bad and wrong, and will not function with a standards-compliant LDAP server without shims and hacks.
It's just trash unless you're using Exchange, and in that case it scales at approximately 1/40th the effectiveness of IMAP.
People who are "enterprise"-centric are hilarious.
:)
IMAP servers have done 'push' for a decade or more. It's called the IDLE command, and I haven't seen a server or (non-web) client that doesn't support it for a long, long time. The rest of us have been happily using it while the miniscule "enterprise" market (which consists of a few incestuous clueless droids making up a very small percentage of the overall market, whereas most businesses are somewhat smarter) stumbles around pissing themselves over MS/RIM's proprietary "solution" that requires more horsepower to support 200 users than IMAP needs to support 200,000. Literally.
Just hilarious. I hope you all enjoy wacking off while everyone else in the world is getting work done.
Welcome to the real world, of people who recognize that the Beatles are music for the masses "claptrap". They had some good songs that went a little further than the strict norm, but certainly not a lot further.
Anyone who tells you they were groundbreaking is lying to you. They were popular enough that they could bring the innovations of others, extremely watered-down, to the great white mass.
This is moronic. The very large majority of those permutations will be nonsensical, and a vanishingly small percentage will have any coherent bearing on a given subject.
Seriously. What are you talking about?
No, see, I did get it. A long time ago. :)
And now that I've listened to a lot of other music, and put in more time reading stuff that isn't sci-fi, lyrics like:
Are just the same old, same old dumb pop claptrap with different music (that's mostly wanky--yes you can play scales fast, I don't care--I want something more interesting). That could be a song by Linkin Park or Motley Crue or Donna Summer. Quite literally. There's nothing smart about it.
Also, a helping hand to you: anytime you claim someone doesn't have the "IQ" to "get" an art form, you've instantly lost (and you're probably a lot less smart than you think). I've known a lot more very smart people who like anything else but prog/powermetal.
Somehow given prevailing attitudes on Slashdot, I find it unsurprising that there's a contigent who love stuff like Dream Theater that most of us metalheads grew out of sometime in our late teens. It seems like really, really smart music.... when you don't know anything...
Slashdot sucks at threading and indentation so I'm not sure which bit you're responding to, me or someone else, but either way I'm with you on the content of this post. :)