How about phones just print the dB signal loss and be done with it? A number should be far easier for someone to tell about signal strength than guessing by 0-5 bars.
Yes, because "-70 dB" would be much clearer to your average cell phone user than "5 out of 5 bars"...
Keep in mind that many of those users also think it's a good idea to send text messages while driving. It would take a $10M advertising campaign just to convince those people that "-70" is better than "-100".
Often people click Back multiple times to get where they want. If we could invent a "Go Back to where I wanted to be" button that the user clicked only once, this would be more useful but receive fewer clicks.
Agreed. But having to click Back multiple times is precisely the reason why it needs to be so easily accessible.
And if your hypothetical button is not the "most clicked" button on the UI, then it should be demoted to provide the new "most clicked" button with the most screen area. "Most valuable" in terms of UI design does not equate to "most functionality". It means "the button people use the most often". Buttons that are clicked once every 6 months can be buried in a series of menus because people will put up with the extra effort once every 6 months. But no one would want to jump through so many hoops if they have to use the feature every 6 minutes.
Screen real estate is valuable, and knowing how often buttons are used tells you which ones to make easily accessible and which ones can be buried.
When it comes to UI's, "most clicked" should absolutely be equated to "most valuable". Doing otherwise could result in a horrid design where the simplest tasks require very convoluted and excessive steps.
It's gonna be a real bummer for him when he gets stopped for speeding, he acts "suspicious", they search him, and then they just happen to "find" some cocaine in his rectum.
It sounds like Obama's administration already figured out the process better than Bush's. The numbers are only going to increase as the years go by. After all, a lack of understanding in this system would lead to more information being released, not more withheld.
I really hope that was an attempt to dumb it down for the article. It's a pretty poor way of describing the difference between HDDs and SSDs. After all, HDDs are a form of non-volatile memory too. They just happen to have a mechanical aspect.
In fact, the only way in which they could stream music without having it all in memory first is if they were using a microphone and a live band. Sure, it might make for an entertaining data center, but it's not very scalable.
Card counting in your head is legal. Card counting devices, which is what this is, are illegal. Of course, this will probably be allowed without question since the gaming laws exist to benefit the casinos, not the players.
As the AC already pointed out, Sony isn't a US corporation. Also, Canon does the same thing. In the US, the 5D Mark II lists for $2699USD, and in the UK it lists for £2690GBP.
If we're going to be jumping to random conclusions based on little to no data (after all, this is/.), these two data points should be enough to conclude that Japanese corporations have trouble doing currency conversions. Actually, to be more precise, customers of Japanese corporations have trouble doing currency conversions, otherwise they would know they are being ripped off.
But in reality, these are just two data points and the more likely scenario is that these two companies (among others, I'm sure) have just found another way to screw over some of their customers.
Just pointing out that the term would extend until the beginning of 2017 since many people, as you saw, can't seem to figure that out (for whatever reason).
I'm aware that you were referring to his chance of being re-elected and not to the end of his hypothetical second term.
If he is re-elected in 2012, he will officially be president until January 2017. And since incumbents have much better odds of winning, there's a pretty good chance he'll be president in 2016.
Whether or not that is a good thing is left as an exercise for the reader.
A Tesco spokesman said: "Jedi are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods.
If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers."
See? The employees were simply trying to help him save money. This was all blown way out of proportion.
</sarcasm>
It's pretty plain that you're squirming now, because your post is just spit and froth.
Keep telling yourself that.
See, you're ignoring the fact that one person's self-expression does not go without the context of prior acts of self-expression.
And you're ignoring the fact that the prior acts of which you speak were people making fun of black people. You seem to be under the impression that those people put black makeup on and just walked around town just like they normally would. By your logic, clothing should not be made of cotton because cotton was picked by slaves, and someone might possibly relate cotton to slavery. While someone might make that connection, it would be unhealthy and they should seek professional help. Cotton was never the enemy, slave owners were. Just as black makeup was not the enemy, those who used it to dress up like and subsequently humiliate black people were.
Now, please try to keep up here:
In the context of racist blackface acts such as Al Jolson's, the act of coloring a black person's face white can be used to imply that that person is racist,
Why do you keep trying to relate the two together? During the blackface era, no one was putting on white makeup in order to humiliate black people. They were putting on black makeup (among other pieces of makeup) to humiliate black people. Hence the term blackface.
or it can't be used as a racist attack in itself: i.e., that a person is not fit for their role because they are black, and they should be replaced with a white person.
Freudian slip on your part?
Assuming you meant "can be used...", I would agree. It can. But can != must.
Let's look at this from a more generic standpoint: when an artist photoshops someone to look like someone else, the artist can be insinuating that the person either should be like the photoshopped version, or that the person already is like the photoshopped version.
Now let's apply that to this context: the artist made Obama look like The Joker (or more generically if you prefer, a clown or a villain). So the artist was insinuating that the person either should be like The Joker, or already is like The Joker. The former makes no sense, so the logical conclusion is the latter. The important distinction here that you seem to be missing is that The Joker is not the epitome of the average white person. Therefore it makes no sense to assume the artist was implying Obama should be a white person, because there are far more obvious attributes of The Joker to relate to the comparison than the fact that the character was white. To suggest that The Joker's race was his most memorable attribute would require ignoring all of his other attributes (criminal, insane, etc.) in order to manufacturer racism which would otherwise not exist.
I still can't tell whether or not you assert the photo might be considered racist by someone, or that it must be considered racist. I would agree with the former, someone might consider it racist. But I maintain that in order to do so, that person would have to ignore all of the painfully more obvious meanings first. Doing so is clearly manufacturing racism if there is no additional data to prove or at least suggest that the artist did not have any of those more obvious meanings in mind. (In this case, there is no data suggesting that.)
If your assertion is the latter, then I still disagree for the reasons I have just stated.
There you go. I'm just spelling out why you feel so uncomfortable.
You're right, I do feel uncomfortable. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that you are allowed to walk around all day without adult supervision.
The term blackface embodies more than just makeup, it is (was) a performance. The performance was based on making fun of stereotypes (popular at the time) of black people. The root of those stereotypes was the suggestion that black people were somehow inferior, ignorant, etc. Hence why the performance was racist. They targeted a particular race and made fun of that race.
See if you can find videos from some of the blackface performances. You'll probably be offended regardless of your race. They were extremely prejudiced, and when I first saw a video of one I was actually disgusted at the thought of anyone being entertained by something like that.
Not at all. That's called "avoiding pissing off groups of people by lampooning examples of their culture or characteristics". Quite the opposite of racism.
By your logic, it's okay for white people to call black people "nigger".
So putting white makeup on a black person is equivalent to using the N-word? Interesting. It's a good thing the entertainment industry hasn't heard about this yet.
No shit, Sherlock. Al Jolson was white. Colouring a black person white with facepaint is the same thing because it draws context from the earlier examples.
And let's see: was that racist?
Al Jolson's acts were racist because he was dressing up like exaggerated stereotypes of a black person for others' entertainment. Coloring a black person white with makeup would ONLY be racist if it were either meant to suggest the black person should be white or to poke fun at stereotypes of white people. As has been proven time and time again, this photo does NEITHER.
By the way, I don't have any data for this, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that there has been at least one black performer who dressed as a clown at some point during the history of the world. By your logic (and I use that term loosely), he must be labeled a racist because his chosen profession required the use of white makeup. Quite a shame. Even more of a shame is that he wouldn't have been a racist if his skin color were white.</sarcasm>
Quite.
Which is why we're debating how the image was used after the guy dicked around with Photoshop. Got that?
It's how it was used after this guy planted it on Flickr.
Is that what we're debating? I must have missed that memo. Hmm. Let me pull up your original comment just to be sure. Ahh, yes. Here it is:
whiteface is not "criticism" -- it's racism
I can't find the part about how the photo was being used caused it to be racist. Maybe it's in between the two '-'s? I don't think so though. It looks to me like you're simply stating that clowns and mimes are racist. I'm sure all of the clowns and mimes of the world would be deeply disappointed to learn that.
By the way, if you were referring to the use of the term "socialism", I really hope you are not suggesting that socialism is limited to a particular race. I'm quite sure it is in fact an economic system, one which people of any race are allowed to support.
Oh, so it's just me, is it?
In this argument, yes. You are the one so incredibly fixated on the color of one's skin. Pretty much every other poster in this thread understands that the photo was at least an exercise in using photoshop (where the artist clearly felt proud of his work and wanted to share with people), and at most a political satire depicting a person as a villain through the use of a well-known character. Notice you are the one trying to point out to everyone else that it is a black person being depicted as a white person. Why do you have such a fixation on color? Were you molested as a child by a box of crayons? Oh, I know what it is! You are afraid of clowns! That's it, isn't it?
It's because of people like you that racism still exists in this world. Because people like you must constantly call attention to the color of one's skin. When will you learn that we are all just people?
Thanks for your posts, though. It's been entertaining beyond words.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your posts? You are suggesting that a person cannot use face paint just because of the color of their skin. That is practically the textbook definition of racial discrimination. But in your eyes, it is everyone else who is racist.
Al Jolson performed in blackface. Blackface != using white makeup. The term blackface describes a style of makeup which depicts many exaggerated racial stereotypes. It consists of more than just black makeup. It also includes red makeup to exaggerate the lips, as well as other details. Of course, the black makeup is the primary trait, but the act is much more than just using black makeup. The concept of blackface and the act associated with it are extremely racist, but the makeup is merely a tool. The racism comes from the meaning behind the act. I'll say that again just in case you missed it. The racism comes from the meaning behind the act.
You cannot label an action as racism without evaluating the meaning behind the action. If the action is meant to discriminate against someone based on their race, that is racism. But if the action is to try out new photoshop skills and maybe suggest the president is a villain, race never enters the equation in the first place. That is, at least until you came along and suggested Obama be treated differently simply because he's not white-skinned.
Slashdot Mirror
How about phones just print the dB signal loss and be done with it? A number should be far easier for someone to tell about signal strength than guessing by 0-5 bars.
Yes, because "-70 dB" would be much clearer to your average cell phone user than "5 out of 5 bars"...
Keep in mind that many of those users also think it's a good idea to send text messages while driving. It would take a $10M advertising campaign just to convince those people that "-70" is better than "-100".
Often people click Back multiple times to get where they want. If we could invent a "Go Back to where I wanted to be" button that the user clicked only once, this would be more useful but receive fewer clicks.
Agreed. But having to click Back multiple times is precisely the reason why it needs to be so easily accessible.
And if your hypothetical button is not the "most clicked" button on the UI, then it should be demoted to provide the new "most clicked" button with the most screen area. "Most valuable" in terms of UI design does not equate to "most functionality". It means "the button people use the most often". Buttons that are clicked once every 6 months can be buried in a series of menus because people will put up with the extra effort once every 6 months. But no one would want to jump through so many hoops if they have to use the feature every 6 minutes.
Screen real estate is valuable, and knowing how often buttons are used tells you which ones to make easily accessible and which ones can be buried.
When it comes to UI's, "most clicked" should absolutely be equated to "most valuable". Doing otherwise could result in a horrid design where the simplest tasks require very convoluted and excessive steps.
It's gonna be a real bummer for him when he gets stopped for speeding, he acts "suspicious", they search him, and then they just happen to "find" some cocaine in his rectum.
Fixed that for you.
Release the kraken!
It sounds like Obama's administration already figured out the process better than Bush's. The numbers are only going to increase as the years go by. After all, a lack of understanding in this system would lead to more information being released, not more withheld.
We need more server space dedicated to DNF writing!
The additional server space you've requested will be here soon.
I had the same problem. Turns out it was an overflow error in their system. They were only using a long to store the measurements.
*rimshot*
Men with guns standing on the ground win wars, not planes blowing up random stuff from 20,000 feet.
Tell that to Japan.
I really hope that was an attempt to dumb it down for the article. It's a pretty poor way of describing the difference between HDDs and SSDs. After all, HDDs are a form of non-volatile memory too. They just happen to have a mechanical aspect.
In fact, the only way in which they could stream music without having it all in memory first is if they were using a microphone and a live band. Sure, it might make for an entertaining data center, but it's not very scalable.
...on this exact day all the pizzas will be just $2, and there will be hookers, and there will be free beer, and there will be rock music...
In fact, forget the pizza and rock music. And the free beer.
Ahh, screw the whole thing!
I have feverishly been engaged in whacking moles...
So that's what the kids are calling it nowadays.
...and cannot for the life of me comprehend why they continue to pop up.
Give it a few more years and you'll soon miss that.
No, because it isn't unlawful in the first place.
Card counting in your head is legal. Card counting devices, which is what this is, are illegal. Of course, this will probably be allowed without question since the gaming laws exist to benefit the casinos, not the players.
As the AC already pointed out, Sony isn't a US corporation. Also, Canon does the same thing. In the US, the 5D Mark II lists for $2699USD, and in the UK it lists for £2690GBP.
If we're going to be jumping to random conclusions based on little to no data (after all, this is /.), these two data points should be enough to conclude that Japanese corporations have trouble doing currency conversions. Actually, to be more precise, customers of Japanese corporations have trouble doing currency conversions, otherwise they would know they are being ripped off.
But in reality, these are just two data points and the more likely scenario is that these two companies (among others, I'm sure) have just found another way to screw over some of their customers.
Think they're mad now? Just wait until they get the bill.
Just pointing out that the term would extend until the beginning of 2017 since many people, as you saw, can't seem to figure that out (for whatever reason).
I'm aware that you were referring to his chance of being re-elected and not to the end of his hypothetical second term.
If he is re-elected in 2012, he will officially be president until January 2017. And since incumbents have much better odds of winning, there's a pretty good chance he'll be president in 2016. Whether or not that is a good thing is left as an exercise for the reader.
Need a prostate exam? There's an app for that.
A Tesco spokesman said: "Jedi are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods. If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers."
See? The employees were simply trying to help him save money. This was all blown way out of proportion. </sarcasm>
...and in the darkness bind them? I guess bondage would be included too.
It's pretty plain that you're squirming now, because your post is just spit and froth.
Keep telling yourself that.
See, you're ignoring the fact that one person's self-expression does not go without the context of prior acts of self-expression.
And you're ignoring the fact that the prior acts of which you speak were people making fun of black people. You seem to be under the impression that those people put black makeup on and just walked around town just like they normally would. By your logic, clothing should not be made of cotton because cotton was picked by slaves, and someone might possibly relate cotton to slavery. While someone might make that connection, it would be unhealthy and they should seek professional help. Cotton was never the enemy, slave owners were. Just as black makeup was not the enemy, those who used it to dress up like and subsequently humiliate black people were.
Now, please try to keep up here:
In the context of racist blackface acts such as Al Jolson's, the act of coloring a black person's face white can be used to imply that that person is racist,
Why do you keep trying to relate the two together? During the blackface era, no one was putting on white makeup in order to humiliate black people. They were putting on black makeup (among other pieces of makeup) to humiliate black people. Hence the term blackface.
or it can't be used as a racist attack in itself: i.e., that a person is not fit for their role because they are black, and they should be replaced with a white person.
Freudian slip on your part?
Assuming you meant "can be used...", I would agree. It can. But can != must.
Let's look at this from a more generic standpoint: when an artist photoshops someone to look like someone else, the artist can be insinuating that the person either should be like the photoshopped version, or that the person already is like the photoshopped version.
Now let's apply that to this context: the artist made Obama look like The Joker (or more generically if you prefer, a clown or a villain). So the artist was insinuating that the person either should be like The Joker, or already is like The Joker. The former makes no sense, so the logical conclusion is the latter. The important distinction here that you seem to be missing is that The Joker is not the epitome of the average white person. Therefore it makes no sense to assume the artist was implying Obama should be a white person, because there are far more obvious attributes of The Joker to relate to the comparison than the fact that the character was white. To suggest that The Joker's race was his most memorable attribute would require ignoring all of his other attributes (criminal, insane, etc.) in order to manufacturer racism which would otherwise not exist.
I still can't tell whether or not you assert the photo might be considered racist by someone, or that it must be considered racist. I would agree with the former, someone might consider it racist. But I maintain that in order to do so, that person would have to ignore all of the painfully more obvious meanings first. Doing so is clearly manufacturing racism if there is no additional data to prove or at least suggest that the artist did not have any of those more obvious meanings in mind. (In this case, there is no data suggesting that.)
If your assertion is the latter, then I still disagree for the reasons I have just stated.
There you go. I'm just spelling out why you feel so uncomfortable.
You're right, I do feel uncomfortable. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that you are allowed to walk around all day without adult supervision.
The term blackface embodies more than just makeup, it is (was) a performance. The performance was based on making fun of stereotypes (popular at the time) of black people. The root of those stereotypes was the suggestion that black people were somehow inferior, ignorant, etc. Hence why the performance was racist. They targeted a particular race and made fun of that race.
See if you can find videos from some of the blackface performances. You'll probably be offended regardless of your race. They were extremely prejudiced, and when I first saw a video of one I was actually disgusted at the thought of anyone being entertained by something like that.
Not at all. That's called "avoiding pissing off groups of people by lampooning examples of their culture or characteristics". Quite the opposite of racism.
By your logic, it's okay for white people to call black people "nigger".
So putting white makeup on a black person is equivalent to using the N-word? Interesting. It's a good thing the entertainment industry hasn't heard about this yet.
No shit, Sherlock. Al Jolson was white. Colouring a black person white with facepaint is the same thing because it draws context from the earlier examples.
And let's see: was that racist?
Al Jolson's acts were racist because he was dressing up like exaggerated stereotypes of a black person for others' entertainment. Coloring a black person white with makeup would ONLY be racist if it were either meant to suggest the black person should be white or to poke fun at stereotypes of white people. As has been proven time and time again, this photo does NEITHER.
By the way, I don't have any data for this, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that there has been at least one black performer who dressed as a clown at some point during the history of the world. By your logic (and I use that term loosely), he must be labeled a racist because his chosen profession required the use of white makeup. Quite a shame. Even more of a shame is that he wouldn't have been a racist if his skin color were white.</sarcasm>
Quite.
Which is why we're debating how the image was used after the guy dicked around with Photoshop. Got that?
It's how it was used after this guy planted it on Flickr.
Is that what we're debating? I must have missed that memo. Hmm. Let me pull up your original comment just to be sure. Ahh, yes. Here it is:
whiteface is not "criticism" -- it's racism
I can't find the part about how the photo was being used caused it to be racist. Maybe it's in between the two '-'s? I don't think so though. It looks to me like you're simply stating that clowns and mimes are racist. I'm sure all of the clowns and mimes of the world would be deeply disappointed to learn that.
By the way, if you were referring to the use of the term "socialism", I really hope you are not suggesting that socialism is limited to a particular race. I'm quite sure it is in fact an economic system, one which people of any race are allowed to support.
Oh, so it's just me, is it?
In this argument, yes. You are the one so incredibly fixated on the color of one's skin. Pretty much every other poster in this thread understands that the photo was at least an exercise in using photoshop (where the artist clearly felt proud of his work and wanted to share with people), and at most a political satire depicting a person as a villain through the use of a well-known character. Notice you are the one trying to point out to everyone else that it is a black person being depicted as a white person. Why do you have such a fixation on color? Were you molested as a child by a box of crayons? Oh, I know what it is! You are afraid of clowns! That's it, isn't it?
It's because of people like you that racism still exists in this world. Because people like you must constantly call attention to the color of one's skin. When will you learn that we are all just people?
Thanks for your posts, though. It's been entertaining beyond words.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your posts? You are suggesting that a person cannot use face paint just because of the color of their skin. That is practically the textbook definition of racial discrimination. But in your eyes, it is everyone else who is racist.
Al Jolson performed in blackface. Blackface != using white makeup. The term blackface describes a style of makeup which depicts many exaggerated racial stereotypes. It consists of more than just black makeup. It also includes red makeup to exaggerate the lips, as well as other details. Of course, the black makeup is the primary trait, but the act is much more than just using black makeup. The concept of blackface and the act associated with it are extremely racist, but the makeup is merely a tool. The racism comes from the meaning behind the act. I'll say that again just in case you missed it. The racism comes from the meaning behind the act.
You cannot label an action as racism without evaluating the meaning behind the action. If the action is meant to discriminate against someone based on their race, that is racism. But if the action is to try out new photoshop skills and maybe suggest the president is a villain, race never enters the equation in the first place. That is, at least until you came along and suggested Obama be treated differently simply because he's not white-skinned.
Actually it's more like playing with your Wii.