Lower prices -> lower profits. Plus, if people discover that they don't *need* something twice as fast ever couple years, they'll stop buying so many laptops, and all the laptop manufacturers will lose money.
The whole "colors" thing is an attempt to convince people to buy something they don't actually need.
There is far too much change for change sake in the software industry. Far too often, each new release concentrates on spiffy new features at the expense of bug fixing. The number of applications I can name that started getting worse with each new release is near endless. (Pretty much every Microsoft application falls into this category.) What makes me particularly nervous is that one application that started getting worse with each new version was the old Netscape browser.
I don't really want "Netscape 3". I want Netscape 2 with fewer bugs, faster performance and lower memory requirements.
Because applications that attempt to "learn" and custom tailor generally fail to actually work for the user. What's worse, they make the criteria for selecting things opaque, which makes the system harder to figure out for the user.
Yeah, don't get me started on the Windows menu. Nothing like hiding menu options that you don't use much to make it harder to find the obscure commands that you don't remember the location of because you don't use them much.
As I said, I haven't used Firefox 3. I was responding to the post that talked about how Firefox "learned", which, as I said, I think is a bad idea. If that post was wrong, and merely uses simple, clear rules, then great!
I just wanted to point out that there are creationists who believe in "microevolution" but not "macroevolution". That is, they believe that natural selection can cause small changes in species but can't create large changes and new species. That argument goes something like "sure, natural selection can cause a bacteria to obtain resistance, obviously, but it isn't going to allow the bacteria to evolve into an entirely different species". Any creationist you see with any sort of medicial/biological training is likely one of these.
For the record: I think creationism is a crock of shit...
No...I want autocomplete. What I don't want is autocomplete based on arcane and mysterious rules that I do not understand. I want autocomplete based on simple and clearcut rules, like "suggest the most recently used URL that matches". In my experience, software that tries to "learn" is harder to use because you end up trying to figure out how to get the damn thing to "learn" what you want it to learn.
Yes, exactly. I have no idea whether Firefox 3 will be annoying or not, but every time I hear about software "adapting" or "learning", I want to scream. Nearly every time I use such a system, I end up pissed off about the unpredictability.
The best programmers don't call themselves superstars. As they say, true wisdom is not knowing. It isn't even knowing what you know. True wisdom is knowing what you don't know. Those who label themselves "superstar" are nearly always prima donnas who produce badly engineered, WTFworthy code and refuse to work with others.
Gah! I don't want software that fucking "learns"! I don't want software that tries to think for me. I want software that just fucking works in the first place!
It's the KISS principle. I'd rather have stupid software that works in a clear manner than all this crap that tries to figure out what I maybe might be wanting.
You are missing the point. PERJURY in the questioning of prospective jurors IS grounds for a mistrial.
So yes, you can indeed vote however you want once you reach the jury room, but if you tell everyone under oath that you are willing to convict someone of the "crime" of breaking DRM and then turn around and tell your fellow jurors that you won't convict because you don't think it is a crime, then you can indeed be convicted of perjury and there likely will be a mistrial. Not because of anything to do with jury nullification but because of the crime of lying under oath. You can't be punished for jury nullification, but you CAN be punished for lying about your beliefs under oath.
So you can certainly hope that the lawyers don't ask you the right questions so that you can get in there and fight to let the guy off, but you can't lie in response to a direct question about it and hope to do any good. And the lawyers will almost certainly ask the right questions...they're trained to.
A jury isn't punishable for its verdict, no, but you miss my point. Before you get onto the jury, you are asked questions under oath. If you lie, you have committed perjury, which you *can* be punished for. Your statements in the jury room can be used as evidence that you committed perjury. That has nothing to do with jury nullification.
If you are in the jury pool for a trial involving the "crime" of breaking encryption, you will almost certainly be asked, under oath, if you believe such a thing should be considered a crime. If you say "no", there is no way in hell you will end up serving on the jury. If you lie to get on the jury, you will have committed perjury. If you refuse to vote for conviction based on your belief, your perjury will be obvious and it will almost certainly cause a mistrial. The person will almost certainly face another trial and you will be facing charges. That helps nobody.
If I were in such a situation, I would merely announce my reasons why I think such a "crime" is complete bullshit when asked, knowing that those who will eventually serve on the jury are all within earshot, and then happily go home when I am booted, knowing that I've broken no laws and done the best that I could.
Please read up on circumstantial evidence. If a someone is seen entering a house, the victim is heard screaming "oh my God, he's killing me!!!!" and that someone then is seen fleeing the house with a bloody knife, then there is only circumstantial evidence that he committed the crime.
Circumstantial evidence is any evidence that is not direct. The phrase "circumstantial evidence" means that the evidence implies that manner in which the crime was committed. It says nothing about how strong the implication is. For a murder, pretty much only confessions and eyewitnesses are not circumstantial evidence. Scott Peterson was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. Finding the Mona Lisa in someone's bedroom is only circumstantial evidence that they stole it.
The evidence against Reiser may well be thin. Not sitting in the jury box, it is not for me to say one way or another. But that the evidence is only circumstantial has nothing to do with whether the evidence is weak or not.
If you refuse to convict on circumstantial evidence, you'll almost never convict anyone.
Insider trading is in general extremely hard to prove. Not much difference between saying "er...crack this machine" and "er...sell" in a bar to a friend with no eavesdroppers.
Exactly. Why would you move to another part of the company to a company with a flat stock when you can work for another company within commute distance with better perks and a rising stock?
Yahoo employees are likely used to their free lattes and their free gym. There's another company that offers those sorts of benefits, and it ain't Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't even work on my browser. (Firefox on Windows.) I might try on my Linux box, but what's the point? My reading time is on the train.
Lower prices -> lower profits. Plus, if people discover that they don't *need* something twice as fast ever couple years, they'll stop buying so many laptops, and all the laptop manufacturers will lose money.
The whole "colors" thing is an attempt to convince people to buy something they don't actually need.
There is far too much change for change sake in the software industry. Far too often, each new release concentrates on spiffy new features at the expense of bug fixing. The number of applications I can name that started getting worse with each new release is near endless. (Pretty much every Microsoft application falls into this category.) What makes me particularly nervous is that one application that started getting worse with each new version was the old Netscape browser.
I don't really want "Netscape 3". I want Netscape 2 with fewer bugs, faster performance and lower memory requirements.
Because applications that attempt to "learn" and custom tailor generally fail to actually work for the user. What's worse, they make the criteria for selecting things opaque, which makes the system harder to figure out for the user.
Yeah, don't get me started on the Windows menu. Nothing like hiding menu options that you don't use much to make it harder to find the obscure commands that you don't remember the location of because you don't use them much.
As I said, I haven't used Firefox 3. I was responding to the post that talked about how Firefox "learned", which, as I said, I think is a bad idea. If that post was wrong, and merely uses simple, clear rules, then great!
Exactly. Unpredictable software is hard-to-use software. More software designers need to understand this.
I just wanted to point out that there are creationists who believe in "microevolution" but not "macroevolution". That is, they believe that natural selection can cause small changes in species but can't create large changes and new species. That argument goes something like "sure, natural selection can cause a bacteria to obtain resistance, obviously, but it isn't going to allow the bacteria to evolve into an entirely different species". Any creationist you see with any sort of medicial/biological training is likely one of these.
For the record: I think creationism is a crock of shit...
No...I want autocomplete. What I don't want is autocomplete based on arcane and mysterious rules that I do not understand. I want autocomplete based on simple and clearcut rules, like "suggest the most recently used URL that matches". In my experience, software that tries to "learn" is harder to use because you end up trying to figure out how to get the damn thing to "learn" what you want it to learn.
Yes, exactly. I have no idea whether Firefox 3 will be annoying or not, but every time I hear about software "adapting" or "learning", I want to scream. Nearly every time I use such a system, I end up pissed off about the unpredictability.
The best programmers don't call themselves superstars. As they say, true wisdom is not knowing. It isn't even knowing what you know. True wisdom is knowing what you don't know. Those who label themselves "superstar" are nearly always prima donnas who produce badly engineered, WTFworthy code and refuse to work with others.
Congratulations. You just rejected Donald Knuth.
Gah! I don't want software that fucking "learns"! I don't want software that tries to think for me. I want software that just fucking works in the first place!
It's the KISS principle. I'd rather have stupid software that works in a clear manner than all this crap that tries to figure out what I maybe might be wanting.
What I find frightening is that they are still on sale at Best Buy.
You are missing the point. PERJURY in the questioning of prospective jurors IS grounds for a mistrial.
So yes, you can indeed vote however you want once you reach the jury room, but if you tell everyone under oath that you are willing to convict someone of the "crime" of breaking DRM and then turn around and tell your fellow jurors that you won't convict because you don't think it is a crime, then you can indeed be convicted of perjury and there likely will be a mistrial. Not because of anything to do with jury nullification but because of the crime of lying under oath. You can't be punished for jury nullification, but you CAN be punished for lying about your beliefs under oath.
So you can certainly hope that the lawyers don't ask you the right questions so that you can get in there and fight to let the guy off, but you can't lie in response to a direct question about it and hope to do any good. And the lawyers will almost certainly ask the right questions...they're trained to.
Is there a purpose to getting yourself thrown in jail by causing a mistrial, which will just be redone with an entirely new jury?
A jury isn't punishable for its verdict, no, but you miss my point. Before you get onto the jury, you are asked questions under oath. If you lie, you have committed perjury, which you *can* be punished for. Your statements in the jury room can be used as evidence that you committed perjury. That has nothing to do with jury nullification.
If you are in the jury pool for a trial involving the "crime" of breaking encryption, you will almost certainly be asked, under oath, if you believe such a thing should be considered a crime. If you say "no", there is no way in hell you will end up serving on the jury. If you lie to get on the jury, you will have committed perjury. If you refuse to vote for conviction based on your belief, your perjury will be obvious and it will almost certainly cause a mistrial. The person will almost certainly face another trial and you will be facing charges. That helps nobody.
If I were in such a situation, I would merely announce my reasons why I think such a "crime" is complete bullshit when asked, knowing that those who will eventually serve on the jury are all within earshot, and then happily go home when I am booted, knowing that I've broken no laws and done the best that I could.
Life isn't fiction. If you see a man fleeing a house with a bloody knife, 99.9% of the time, he's the killer.
If you take fiction for reality, you are a fool.
Please read up on circumstantial evidence. If a someone is seen entering a house, the victim is heard screaming "oh my God, he's killing me!!!!" and that someone then is seen fleeing the house with a bloody knife, then there is only circumstantial evidence that he committed the crime.
Circumstantial evidence is any evidence that is not direct. The phrase "circumstantial evidence" means that the evidence implies that manner in which the crime was committed. It says nothing about how strong the implication is. For a murder, pretty much only confessions and eyewitnesses are not circumstantial evidence. Scott Peterson was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. Finding the Mona Lisa in someone's bedroom is only circumstantial evidence that they stole it.
The evidence against Reiser may well be thin. Not sitting in the jury box, it is not for me to say one way or another. But that the evidence is only circumstantial has nothing to do with whether the evidence is weak or not.
If you refuse to convict on circumstantial evidence, you'll almost never convict anyone.
Technically speaking, it runs off of muscle power.
Insider trading is in general extremely hard to prove. Not much difference between saying "er...crack this machine" and "er...sell" in a bar to a friend with no eavesdroppers.
If you told him to crack the machine, then *that* is insider knowledge.
Exactly. Why would you move to another part of the company to a company with a flat stock when you can work for another company within commute distance with better perks and a rising stock?
Yahoo employees are likely used to their free lattes and their free gym. There's another company that offers those sorts of benefits, and it ain't Microsoft.
rec.arts.video.recording.fanaticism was all in a lather but everyone else pretty much ignored it.