I've been struggling with the whole printing from windows to cups thing for a couple of days now, since windows suddenly decided to stop being able to print to my samba/cups server. My linux client works fine (not the server), but all the windows machines in the house can't print.
My answer to the angry windows users is to shrug my shoulders and say "windows sucks", but there must be a reason why it won't print... I can see all my shares, but the printing doesn't work any more...
I, too, would love to get rid of the raise-on-focus of windows. I like my X-window system, where I can set focus-follows-mouse, raise-on-click. To type something in a window, I only have to put the mouse over the window, and it doesn't hide what was originally in front.
Another of my least-favourite aspects of windows is the ability of apps to dictate whether their windows can be changed in size. Sometimes I *like* to resize a window/dialog box, even if the original designer doesn't believe I should be able to. Web pages are a prime example of this; some web pages won't resize under windows, but I can change them no problems under Linux.
You see, I find it the opposite. I always expect the next brace I see (downwards) after a "for" or "while" or "if" keyword to be a closing brace. The opening brace is on the same line, so in my mind I always line up the braces with the keyword. It's just how I learned it, I guess...
My source was a phD who had taken official ARIA (Australia's equivalent of the RIAA) stats and worked out that last year there were 2,000 new releases, while the preivous year there were 3,000. Yes, a 33% drop in new releases. And ARIA was complaining about a 62-unit decrease in sales (ie, something like 1,000,000 vs 1,000,062 the previous year).
And, my point wasn't that adding extras to the CD would decrease piracy, it was that adding stuff to the CD would increase sales. However, ARIA/RIAA is not as interested in increasing sales as they are in decreasing piracy, as they see a correlation between more piracy == less sales. I don't come to the same conclusion they do.
To stop piracy, the RIAA has to add value to the CD. For example:
Include with the CD a one-time-use download link for cell-phone ringtones.
Include with the CD a DVD of video clips.
Include with the CD a CD of watermarked MP3s, at high bitrate.
Include with every purchased CD a sticker of the band or whatever.
The question is, though, does the RIAA want to stop piracy, or does the RIAA want to sell more records? The RIAA should be concentrating more on the latter than the former, IMO. That's where the money is; it doesn't really matter from an economic standpoint how much piracy there is, as long as they are selling the records, however from a dogmatic and philosophical point of view RIAA is in the business of "protecting its product". Where portection equates to restriction on consumers, and they wonder why consumers don't buy as many CDs as they used to (not to mention the number of new CDs released is dramatically falling).
Except that the list is SECRET so I don't know if the sites they are filtering are all porn or whether some anti-Utah-government sites slipped in there "accidentally". I'd be a lot more comfortable about the whole deal if the list were publically-auditable.
Even better, instead of a black-list, maybe a white-list of child-suitable sites that can be activated on request.
I agree; and had almost this exact same discussion a few days ago here at work. People seemed to be under the impression that they could yell the proverbial "FIRE!!" in a crowded theatre without consequence.
PS: About your.sig: "Writing Games is Fun!" (presumably referring to authoring computer software with a focus on entertainment); one could also say "Writing Games are Fun", referring to Slashdot...
Similarly, linux and other X-Windows systems implements focus-follows-pointer, and doesn't insist on raising a window when it gets focus. This is a huge time saver when you get used to it. As far as I can tell, neither Windows nor OS X permits this.
Windows permits this using TweakUI. The option is "Activation follows mouse (X-Mouse)". As a Windows user, I tried this out and found it rather pointless (I usually only focus a window when I need to click on a button or something, and by doing that it naturally gets focus). But if you like it, you're definitely free to use it.
But does it allow focus without raising the window? Sometimes you will want to type in a window while leaving it behind the others; it annoys me on my work XP box that I can't do this.
Focus-follows-mouse would become annoying without focus-doesn't-raise, but with it, is very convenient, especially with dual monitors.
Although I don't necessarily agree with the OP, I think the premise that a criticiser needs to be an intellectual or acheivement equivalent in order to criticise is somewhat farcical.
It's roughly the equivalent of demanding that sports commentators be major-league level in order to discuss fielding errors, or demanding that music critics be themselves accomplished musicians. You don't have to be an expert to criticise an expert.
Obviously from your rationale, only 3 or 4 living people are qualified to make comment on GWB.
I was once given some advice about interviews from my Dad, who said something along the lines of: often, the interviewer is looking at whether you know your own limitations. For example, they will often continue to probe about a particular issue, and if the interviewee keeps saying that (s)he'd keep trying to fix the problem, that a Bad Thing(tm). The Correct Answer(tm) is to say, after a while, "That's when it becomes your problem". After a certain amount of time with a problem, you should always defer it higher-up.
The original term "To look a gift horse in the mouth" comes from the practice of looking at a horse's teeth to determine its health. So, to look a gift horse in the mouth is to look critically at a gift, to see whether it's any good or not.
Talk about mixing metaphors! "Shooting a gift horse in the mouth"?? It should be either "looking a gift horse in the mouth", or "beating a dead horse", but neither of those matches what he's trying to say...
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like: Ham Soup. So, obviously, it's salty and wet...
So, what you're saying is that MS should fix the stupidity of their users before they release more operating systems?
That's a great link; now, if only I could somehow print it out...
My answer to the angry windows users is to shrug my shoulders and say "windows sucks", but there must be a reason why it won't print... I can see all my shares, but the printing doesn't work any more...
Amen to that, brother.
Another of my least-favourite aspects of windows is the ability of apps to dictate whether their windows can be changed in size. Sometimes I *like* to resize a window/dialog box, even if the original designer doesn't believe I should be able to. Web pages are a prime example of this; some web pages won't resize under windows, but I can change them no problems under Linux.
In Soviet Russia, old jokes resurrect YOU.
Only old jokes are resurrected. In Korea.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of old jokes.
/karma
You see, I find it the opposite. I always expect the next brace I see (downwards) after a "for" or "while" or "if" keyword to be a closing brace. The opening brace is on the same line, so in my mind I always line up the braces with the keyword. It's just how I learned it, I guess...
My source was a phD who had taken official ARIA (Australia's equivalent of the RIAA) stats and worked out that last year there were 2,000 new releases, while the preivous year there were 3,000. Yes, a 33% drop in new releases. And ARIA was complaining about a 62-unit decrease in sales (ie, something like 1,000,000 vs 1,000,062 the previous year).
And, my point wasn't that adding extras to the CD would decrease piracy, it was that adding stuff to the CD would increase sales. However, ARIA/RIAA is not as interested in increasing sales as they are in decreasing piracy, as they see a correlation between more piracy == less sales. I don't come to the same conclusion they do.
*stands*
*applauds*
Include with the CD a one-time-use download link for cell-phone ringtones.
Include with the CD a DVD of video clips.
Include with the CD a CD of watermarked MP3s, at high bitrate.
Include with every purchased CD a sticker of the band or whatever.
The question is, though, does the RIAA want to stop piracy, or does the RIAA want to sell more records? The RIAA should be concentrating more on the latter than the former, IMO. That's where the money is; it doesn't really matter from an economic standpoint how much piracy there is, as long as they are selling the records, however from a dogmatic and philosophical point of view RIAA is in the business of "protecting its product". Where portection equates to restriction on consumers, and they wonder why consumers don't buy as many CDs as they used to (not to mention the number of new CDs released is dramatically falling).
...
Dallas, Texas
Oh, the irony...
Even better, instead of a black-list, maybe a white-list of child-suitable sites that can be activated on request.
Legally, or Morally?
No, the problem is this: html email. What's wrong with plain text? I'm serious.
PS: About your .sig: "Writing Games is Fun!" (presumably referring to authoring computer software with a focus on entertainment); one could also say "Writing Games are Fun", referring to Slashdot...
Windows permits this using TweakUI. The option is "Activation follows mouse (X-Mouse)". As a Windows user, I tried this out and found it rather pointless (I usually only focus a window when I need to click on a button or something, and by doing that it naturally gets focus). But if you like it, you're definitely free to use it.
But does it allow focus without raising the window? Sometimes you will want to type in a window while leaving it behind the others; it annoys me on my work XP box that I can't do this.
Focus-follows-mouse would become annoying without focus-doesn't-raise, but with it, is very convenient, especially with dual monitors.
Like the way MS broke the Explorer search in XP from the perfectly-good, easy-to-use, specific search tool in 2000.
What's wrong with "Cook on Food" for a restaurant manager? What's that? Oh, Coc.. never mind...
Although I don't necessarily agree with the OP, I think the premise that a criticiser needs to be an intellectual or acheivement equivalent in order to criticise is somewhat farcical.
It's roughly the equivalent of demanding that sports commentators be major-league level in order to discuss fielding errors, or demanding that music critics be themselves accomplished musicians. You don't have to be an expert to criticise an expert.
Obviously from your rationale, only 3 or 4 living people are qualified to make comment on GWB.
I was once given some advice about interviews from my Dad, who said something along the lines of: often, the interviewer is looking at whether you know your own limitations. For example, they will often continue to probe about a particular issue, and if the interviewee keeps saying that (s)he'd keep trying to fix the problem, that a Bad Thing(tm). The Correct Answer(tm) is to say, after a while, "That's when it becomes your problem". After a certain amount of time with a problem, you should always defer it higher-up.
Maybe in this case, the Flawed Hero comes from the geek tragedy?
In Soviet Russia, Metaphor Mixes YOU!!
Only old people mix metaphors. In Korea.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of mixed metaphors!!
I always mix my metaphors with hot grits.
Does the mixed metaphor run Linux?
What the hell, this is what happens when I get modded "Off Topic".
The original term "To look a gift horse in the mouth" comes from the practice of looking at a horse's teeth to determine its health. So, to look a gift horse in the mouth is to look critically at a gift, to see whether it's any good or not.
Talk about mixing metaphors! "Shooting a gift horse in the mouth"?? It should be either "looking a gift horse in the mouth", or "beating a dead horse", but neither of those matches what he's trying to say...