It's a violation of contract law, which is a civil dispute, and the courts can have jurisdiction over it. Which isn't to say that everything in the TOU is enforceable.......
I find it funny that people are complaining about inscrutiable icons on a site where the very name of the site sounds like the command prompt.
That's because you can always type "command --help" and figure out what a command does. Or "man command." It's clear, discoverable, and consistent. Whereas this beautiful icon set has no particular explanation..........
HTML, which was supposed to separate content from presentation, no longer does,
This one really annoys me, because it would be so simple to do. If HTML allowed constants, you could have one place (a separate file, or put them at the top of your file) where all your text and images are defined. Then you could build the HTML, and easily move your constants around as the design changed. Simple solution, easy to implement, effective.
It would also solve the problem that CSS has, where you want to use the same color scheme in several different elements; but if you want to change the color scheme, you have to change the colors in multiple different places. With definable constants, you could change it in one place and be done.
I read the article, expecting a typical no-thought blog rant, but this post is actually quite good (although it's rambling and too long). They discuss the principles of Dieter Rams, and show how Apple is horribly failing to follow them. They track the changes in Apple's interface guidelines over time. So there is actually some useful information in this post (unusual). Here are their main two complaints, things that Apple is missing:
1) Discoverability: The iPhone has plenty of gestures that don't have visual cues....it's often unknown whether clicking on text will perform an action, the latest iOS has "25 secret features." They shouldn't be secret, they should be discoverable to the users. 2) Consistency: Sometimes the back button is there, sometimes it's not. Sometimes gestures do things, sometimes they don't. The "mighty mouse" gestures work differently than the trackpad gestures, etc (more examples in article).
This chart really captures the changes at Apple, showing the changes in their UI guidelines over time. They've lost an entire section called "managing complexity in your software." Maybe Apple thinks software is no longer complex?
Form follows function, that is, you have to make your product work first, and then make it beautiful. If you have a beautiful product that doesn't work, then you have a "gold-plated brick."
Unless you're updating the libraries years after deployment, including the kernel, you can guarantee there are exploits available.
And even if you've updated the libraries and kernel, you can still be assured that exploits are available, though perhaps not available to common script-kiddies.
That just confirms that no terrorist acts were stopped by the spy programs, here's the quote:
just one conviction came out of the government's extra-controversial practice of spying on its own citizens. And that charge, against San Diego cab driver Basaaly Moalin, was for sending money to a terrorist group in Somalia. There was no threat of an actual attack.
. Lack of clarity is not a means to weasel out of anything later.
Are you kidding? 'Weaseling out' is why people hate politicians. It's been standard technique for centuries.
The GOP basically needs a real candidate to beat Hilary and they don't really have one. They don't even have a candidate as good as Romney or McCain and that's pretty sad.
I agree with you there (except about McCain.....remember you're talking about the guy who chose Palin as his running mate. He isn't someone who makes good decisions).
He would be more convincing if he could even give one example of the surveillance programs stopping a terrorist. Because so far we haven't seen them doing that at all.
If the surveillance programs don't stop terrorist attacks, there's not much use in having them (unless that's not really the reason you want them).
Yes. As just one example, think of all the effort and money lost by people rewriting their VB6 apps when Microsoft discontinued the language with no recourse.
The first sentence you quoted carefully avoids answering the question. No one will disagree that we should have a lot of systems beyond databases. It's a non-answer to a reporter's question. Typical politician tripe.
Nope. You're living in your own little fantasy world, sponsored by Rush Limbaugh. Trump explained how he'd sign Muslims up for the database.
I don't like Trump (really, I don't like any of the candidates, but......), but as far as I can tell, he didn't say he'd sign Muslims up for a database. He carefully worded his way around it, continually returning to building a wall (so useful that will be~ ), and generally avoided the reporter's question. Here is the actual transcript, you can judge for yourself. I'm giving my understanding of it, he was careful to avoid saying he would sign Muslims up for a database (and even more avoided how he would accomplish it, "management"):
Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening in this country happen any longer.
Hillyard: But that’s something your White House would want to implement?
Trump: Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.
Hillyard: What do you think the effect of that—how would that work?
Trump: It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming in to our country illegally.
Hillyard: But specifically, how do you actually get them registered into a database?
Trump: It would be just good management. What you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do that. [to someone else] That’s nice.
Hillyard: Do you go to mosques and sign people up?
Trump: Different places. You sign ’em up at different, but it’s all about management. Our country has no management.
Hillyard: Would they have to legally be in this database, would they be—
Trump: They have to—they have to be. Let me just tell you: People can come to the country, but they have to come legally. Thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
Is violating game's TOU is a civil offense
It's a violation of contract law, which is a civil dispute, and the courts can have jurisdiction over it. Which isn't to say that everything in the TOU is enforceable.......
Eh. It's a politician thing. Politicians have been blaming the media for centuries, and probably will continue to do so as long as it works.
Q: How can you tell if a politician is lying?
A: Check if his lips are moving.
hmmmm, sounds bad. Try this command, it should fix everything:
/etc/passwd
mail phantomFive@slashdot.org <
Man pages don't help you discover new commands.
ls /bin /usr/bin
I find it funny that people are complaining about inscrutiable icons on a site where the very name of the site sounds like the command prompt.
That's because you can always type "command --help" and figure out what a command does. Or "man command." It's clear, discoverable, and consistent. Whereas this beautiful icon set has no particular explanation..........
HTML, which was supposed to separate content from presentation, no longer does,
This one really annoys me, because it would be so simple to do. If HTML allowed constants, you could have one place (a separate file, or put them at the top of your file) where all your text and images are defined. Then you could build the HTML, and easily move your constants around as the design changed. Simple solution, easy to implement, effective.
It would also solve the problem that CSS has, where you want to use the same color scheme in several different elements; but if you want to change the color scheme, you have to change the colors in multiple different places. With definable constants, you could change it in one place and be done.
I read the article, expecting a typical no-thought blog rant, but this post is actually quite good (although it's rambling and too long). They discuss the principles of Dieter Rams, and show how Apple is horribly failing to follow them. They track the changes in Apple's interface guidelines over time. So there is actually some useful information in this post (unusual). Here are their main two complaints, things that Apple is missing:
1) Discoverability: The iPhone has plenty of gestures that don't have visual cues....it's often unknown whether clicking on text will perform an action, the latest iOS has "25 secret features." They shouldn't be secret, they should be discoverable to the users.
2) Consistency: Sometimes the back button is there, sometimes it's not. Sometimes gestures do things, sometimes they don't. The "mighty mouse" gestures work differently than the trackpad gestures, etc (more examples in article).
This chart really captures the changes at Apple, showing the changes in their UI guidelines over time. They've lost an entire section called "managing complexity in your software." Maybe Apple thinks software is no longer complex?
Form follows function, that is, you have to make your product work first, and then make it beautiful. If you have a beautiful product that doesn't work, then you have a "gold-plated brick."
Unless you're updating the libraries years after deployment, including the kernel, you can guarantee there are exploits available.
And even if you've updated the libraries and kernel, you can still be assured that exploits are available, though perhaps not available to common script-kiddies.
just one conviction came out of the government's extra-controversial practice of spying on its own citizens. And that charge, against San Diego cab driver Basaaly Moalin, was for sending money to a terrorist group in Somalia. There was no threat of an actual attack.
It doesn't get clearer than that. There is no twisting of words, or meaning
It's extremely ambiguous. What does "that" refer to?
Remember, politicians are even willing to argue about the definition of the word "is"
. Lack of clarity is not a means to weasel out of anything later.
Are you kidding? 'Weaseling out' is why people hate politicians. It's been standard technique for centuries.
The GOP basically needs a real candidate to beat Hilary and they don't really have one. They don't even have a candidate as good as Romney or McCain and that's pretty sad.
I agree with you there (except about McCain.....remember you're talking about the guy who chose Palin as his running mate. He isn't someone who makes good decisions).
He would be more convincing if he could even give one example of the surveillance programs stopping a terrorist. Because so far we haven't seen them doing that at all.
If the surveillance programs don't stop terrorist attacks, there's not much use in having them (unless that's not really the reason you want them).
Why thank you sir.
I get that you apparently do not like the fact that you are feeding a well-defined Republican persecution complex
Not at all. I just don't like it when people misinterpret the words of someone, even if I don't like that person.
But it's not a theory I espoused, nor is it one I subscribe to. Somehow you assumed I do. You probably assumed a lot of things about me.
I think I've read it before.
Again, it seems more clear now than ever that you buy the media persecution ruse
Who said anything about media persecution? Certainly not me.
There are many accurate negative things to be said about Trump, but he's not Hitler. Neither was Bush, and Obama is not the antichrist.
Trying to compare politicians to legendary evil villains only muddies the water for the real debate.
Yes. As just one example, think of all the effort and money lost by people rewriting their VB6 apps when Microsoft discontinued the language with no recourse.
Oh my, you're going for a Godwin's law violation here
Oh really? How? Do you think talking about systems is a fulfillment of Godwin's law?
The first sentence you quoted carefully avoids answering the question. No one will disagree that we should have a lot of systems beyond databases. It's a non-answer to a reporter's question. Typical politician tripe.
Thanks for posting the transcript.
You're welcome, any time.
This story is seems like it's being reported accurately,
Which quote of Trump's specifically are you referring to here? Can you be a little more specific?
Nope. You're living in your own little fantasy world, sponsored by Rush Limbaugh. Trump explained how he'd sign Muslims up for the database.
I don't like Trump (really, I don't like any of the candidates, but......), but as far as I can tell, he didn't say he'd sign Muslims up for a database. He carefully worded his way around it, continually returning to building a wall (so useful that will be~ ), and generally avoided the reporter's question. Here is the actual transcript, you can judge for yourself. I'm giving my understanding of it, he was careful to avoid saying he would sign Muslims up for a database (and even more avoided how he would accomplish it, "management"):
Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening in this country happen any longer.
Hillyard: But that’s something your White House would want to implement?
Trump: Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.
Hillyard: What do you think the effect of that—how would that work?
Trump: It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming in to our country illegally.
Hillyard: But specifically, how do you actually get them registered into a database?
Trump: It would be just good management. What you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do that. [to someone else] That’s nice.
Hillyard: Do you go to mosques and sign people up?
Trump: Different places. You sign ’em up at different, but it’s all about management. Our country has no management.
Hillyard: Would they have to legally be in this database, would they be—
Trump: They have to—they have to be. Let me just tell you: People can come to the country, but they have to come legally. Thank you very much.
It won't be long and the USDA will regulate the meaning of the word "GMO" and "non-GMO" in packaging and advertising.
If you ignore any of the rules to make it more entertaining, it shouldn't be able to legally be called a sport.
Legally? Is that regulated by the OED? What is their typical violation for such a punishment?