1) I said a non religious source. The Guiness Book of Records admits it's impossible to get figures, then goes on to source it's information from "The Bibles Society". Definately a religious source. 2) It's certainly not non-fiction work. 2) Other works of fiction, such as The Da Vinci Code, and The Harry Potter books clearly outsell it.
No, that's exactly what I was referring to. It's a list of who owns what. No more and no less. And as it's a millennia old, none of that property is still in the same hands.
Of course all of the documents I listed are interesting as history. And the US constitution will be too, long after it no longer is used as a current legal document.
The feds will flipflop on this as soon as Obama is out of office.
That depends. If it's a Republican president, you're probably right. If it's a democrat one, that's unlikely.
In this day and age, the majority of Democratic voters don't want a war on cannabis users. And there's no strong business case to either (other than the private prisons providers.) That reality applies just as much to the next Democrat president as this one.
TBF, a lot of people do believe she actually said it...
Oh, absolutely. People misunderstand all sorts of things and get details wrong. But my point stands that that's the result of a mistake - people attributing an actual quote to the real person rather than the impersonator.
But the Gore misquotes were clearly deliberately manufactured as misquotes.
I'm assuming remarkably little. I even said it was only a possibility that your dislike of him is political. However your dislike is self evident, both in this post and the original one I replied to. So my one assumption is correct.
You clearly know Calibre has a bad UI, as you're not defending it directly. You're making excuses. That you care more about functionality, or that there's support available for people who can't work the UI out. Remember, any poster on a forum looking for advice on how to get an app to do something of which it actually is capable is a failure of the UI.
As to be being a troll. You've admitted that there are people on Calibre's own forums that say that. And I'm not the only one commenting on this Slashdot to say so.
Sorry I'm not going to be specific. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. And there's little to be gained by me downloading the app again to check the details, and then have you deny them here. The denial of someone who already admits to preferring "function over form" is worthless. You simply don't know the topic. I won't waste my time.
It's a good thing that the opposite effect never occurs: defending a scumbag politician who takes credit for the work of others, merely because you agree with his politics. Nope, the concept doesn't exist.
When the evidence is on your side it isn't confirmation bias. And the evidence of Gore being repeatedly misquoted is entirely on my side. As you well know.
NOW says women are just as strong and capable as men as firefighters.
"NOW" could be any one of a number of possible media sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now I don't see any citation that people using '"scientific" arguments to argue that [men & women are] the same.'
In fact the most widely read and quoted text on the topic is "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". A 1992 book that emphasises how different men and women are. Very popular with feminists.
Weren't you here for the 90s? What are you, 12?
In in my late 40s, and have experienced at least 4 different waves of feminism over different decades. 2 with different partners who espoused them. It's a mistake men sometimes make to think that feminists are arguing that men and women are different. In fact they have all been different arguments to the effect that women are either equal or better than men. Definitely not the same.
As regards firefighters, the feminist argument tends to be that if particular women can reach the strength and other requirements required of firefighters then they should be allowed to be firefighters. Either you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding. Or the media outlet you are referring to is a particularly poor or provocative one. "Link bait" existed before the internet. Only then it was called sensationalism (and before that "yellow journalism", though I'm not THAT old.)
Science also tells us that women are not men; but people use "scientific" arguments to argue that they're the same. No social or physical differences, no intellectual differences, nothing. Women and men think exactly the same way and are just as capable at all tasks in exactly the same situations at all times.
Citation?
Scientifically this is bunk.
The "bunk" isn't science's, it's yours. You seem to be using your concept of "science" as your personal cover for your symptoms of psychopathy.
Wow, you really really don't understand science, do you? Start with David Hume then move on to Karl Popper.
That's philosophy, not science. (And not even natural philosophy.) They tend to be championed by people that are decidedly ANTI-science. Deniers that like to pretend they are skeptics.
One of the defining characteristics of science is that it changes and improves in response to new evidence. Even when that seems inscrutable to most people (like QM.)
Beliefs (including but not limited to religions and individual spirituality) on the other hand tend to resist change due to new evidence. Unless and until they become unsustainable even to the most dimwitted person.
It doesn't matter how nicely the website renders it- if it was written with an indent of 3 spaces and you dump it into code with an indent of 4 or tabs, you're going to have problems.
Yes. I did a supplementary post to the effect that I agree with this part. And personally I believe the one true indent should have been tabs, such that everyone can have the indent size they want in their text editor, without having to reformat the source. But any single standard for what an indent is would be better than the "anything goes" we have.
Yeah. That tactic only really works when you are addressing someone with a higher UID than you.
"Fetish" is a strange choice of word for humans being more efficient at maintaining easy to read code than hard to read code. And indenting blocks is near the top of the list of most significant aids for readability.
so why shouldn't the solution to the braces/indentation redundancy in C, Java etc. be a C-/Java-aware editor?
It might be a help. But the fact it hasn't become a common feature in IDEs raises some question marks. (Note to others, there are plenty of IDEs that indent after a curly brace. But few if any that always keep the braces and indenting of a program in sync as you describe.)
But fundamentally it's a band aid over the issue of redundancy. Whereas Python removes the redundancy.
The most common bugs in my code are when I end multiple blocks simultaneously (I tend to deindent either too far or not far enough) and forgetting to change IF to ELIF when I add a higher precedence case as the first IF condition above it.
Neither of these personal problems you have are unique to Python. And I call them personal problems because I don't have them when programming Python, and it's not a complaint I've heard from others as being a python issue. They are errors that can and are made in curly bracket languages too.
(Aside: Missing breaks for switches in C are far more common causes of logic errors than forgetting to insert and else when prepending to a compound if statement. Again, If indenting were significant in C that wouldn't happen. The outdenting of the label would end the block. Just as is intuitive for a user.)
Design is not about how it looks. It's about how it works. And Calibre is a bag of features without any overarching design. For sure it's ugly and that's a bad thing. But it's not the reason for me criticising it's UI design.
This is not intended facetiously, "simple" (and not so simple) questions crop up all the time from the millions of calibre users, and there are a lot of helpful people to answer them.
You're arguing my case for me.
offering "simple" and "advanced" interface options has been brought up several times on the calibre forums, but has been rejected
And it would be rejected by me too. Optionally hiding UI elements does not make an ill thought out application into a good one. See Azeureus (Vuze) for the mess this gets you into.
I left my "evidence" out of the OP, but if you're too lazy to look up the interview yourself, here is what Gore said: "You mentioned my movie back in the day. The single most common criticism from skeptics when the film came out focused on the animation showing ocean water flowing into the World Trade Center memorial site. Skeptics called that demagogic and absurd and irresponsible. It happened last October 29th, years ahead of schedule, and the impact of that and many, many other similar events here and around the world has really begun to create a profound shift." That's fine and all, but Gore also claimed large swaths of the earth would be underwater by now.
So you're now giving us a quote. But saying that you don't have a problem with what he said in the quote, but with something else that he said, that you don't quote. So worthless then.
The trend for major storms since 1851 is negative. See for yourself.
Three problems there. 1) You claim the quoted statement is about hurricanes and imply it's only about hurricanes. Without quoting the bit that establishes your claim. 2) You can't simply link to a table of figures and say there's a trend. 3) That table doesn't cover the last 10 years.
What about Gore's ridiculous claim that his propaganda film predicted the effects of Hurricane Sandy, or that hurricanes are more extreme now?
If you want to make accusations about what someone said, you need to start with a direct quote. What have you got? After that we can discuss to what extent what he actually said, is right or wrong.
At the moment it's just coming across as a hater spewing bile.
Slashdot Mirror
1) I said a non religious source. The Guiness Book of Records admits it's impossible to get figures, then goes on to source it's information from "The Bibles Society". Definately a religious source.
2) It's certainly not non-fiction work.
2) Other works of fiction, such as The Da Vinci Code, and The Harry Potter books clearly outsell it.
I can see why you are marked as a "freak" user. You have no logical argument.
No, that's exactly what I was referring to. It's a list of who owns what. No more and no less. And as it's a millennia old, none of that property is still in the same hands.
Of course all of the documents I listed are interesting as history. And the US constitution will be too, long after it no longer is used as a current legal document.
The Bible is still the best selling book in the world by over 40 times.
Bullshit. It's not even the world's best selling book, let alone 40 times the nearest competitor. Your religious leader lied to you.
If you think otherwise, a citation that doesn't originate from a religious organisation please?
This administration plays pretty fast and loose with enforcement and SELECTIVE enforcement.
Who said the feds are going to selectively enforce? The presidential memo specifically says the new policies for enforcement apply in ALL states.
The feds will flipflop on this as soon as Obama is out of office.
That depends. If it's a Republican president, you're probably right. If it's a democrat one, that's unlikely.
In this day and age, the majority of Democratic voters don't want a war on cannabis users. And there's no strong business case to either (other than the private prisons providers.) That reality applies just as much to the next Democrat president as this one.
Other documents that used to be taken seriously, and were written for the concerns of their times, (and are still hung on to by some.)
The Old Testament.
The New Testament.
The Torah.
The Koran.
The Magna Carta.
The Domesday Book.
Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce.
Which specific item of the constitution do you imagine prevents that?
As the lead of the federal executive, it's precisely his job to choose what priorities the feds have, amongst those things they are empowered to do.
TBF, a lot of people do believe she actually said it...
Oh, absolutely. People misunderstand all sorts of things and get details wrong. But my point stands that that's the result of a mistake - people attributing an actual quote to the real person rather than the impersonator.
But the Gore misquotes were clearly deliberately manufactured as misquotes.
You're assuming a lot.
I'm assuming remarkably little. I even said it was only a possibility that your dislike of him is political. However your dislike is self evident, both in this post and the original one I replied to. So my one assumption is correct.
You clearly know Calibre has a bad UI, as you're not defending it directly. You're making excuses. That you care more about functionality, or that there's support available for people who can't work the UI out. Remember, any poster on a forum looking for advice on how to get an app to do something of which it actually is capable is a failure of the UI.
As to be being a troll. You've admitted that there are people on Calibre's own forums that say that. And I'm not the only one commenting on this Slashdot to say so.
Sorry I'm not going to be specific. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. And there's little to be gained by me downloading the app again to check the details, and then have you deny them here. The denial of someone who already admits to preferring "function over form" is worthless. You simply don't know the topic. I won't waste my time.
It's a good thing that the opposite effect never occurs: defending a scumbag politician who takes credit for the work of others, merely because you agree with his politics. Nope, the concept doesn't exist.
When the evidence is on your side it isn't confirmation bias. And the evidence of Gore being repeatedly misquoted is entirely on my side. As you well know.
NOW says women are just as strong and capable as men as firefighters.
"NOW" could be any one of a number of possible media sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now
I don't see any citation that people using '"scientific" arguments to argue that [men & women are] the same.'
In fact the most widely read and quoted text on the topic is "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". A 1992 book that emphasises how different men and women are. Very popular with feminists.
Weren't you here for the 90s? What are you, 12?
In in my late 40s, and have experienced at least 4 different waves of feminism over different decades. 2 with different partners who espoused them. It's a mistake men sometimes make to think that feminists are arguing that men and women are different. In fact they have all been different arguments to the effect that women are either equal or better than men. Definitely not the same.
As regards firefighters, the feminist argument tends to be that if particular women can reach the strength and other requirements required of firefighters then they should be allowed to be firefighters. Either you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding. Or the media outlet you are referring to is a particularly poor or provocative one. "Link bait" existed before the internet. Only then it was called sensationalism (and before that "yellow journalism", though I'm not THAT old.)
Science also tells us that women are not men; but people use "scientific" arguments to argue that they're the same. No social or physical differences, no intellectual differences, nothing. Women and men think exactly the same way and are just as capable at all tasks in exactly the same situations at all times.
Citation?
Scientifically this is bunk.
The "bunk" isn't science's, it's yours. You seem to be using your concept of "science" as your personal cover for your symptoms of psychopathy.
Wow, you really really don't understand science, do you?
Start with David Hume then move on to Karl Popper.
That's philosophy, not science. (And not even natural philosophy.) They tend to be championed by people that are decidedly ANTI-science. Deniers that like to pretend they are skeptics.
One of the defining characteristics of science is that it changes and improves in response to new evidence. Even when that seems inscrutable to most people (like QM.)
Beliefs (including but not limited to religions and individual spirituality) on the other hand tend to resist change due to new evidence. Unless and until they become unsustainable even to the most dimwitted person.
There are a few obvious exceptions like embryonic stem cell research
Why stop at one example? Republicans record is also poor with regard to:
1) Evolution.
2) The science with regard to tobacco.
3) Climate science.
That Republicans with fund research when they think there's a profit in it is no surprise. But there's an awful lot of science that isn't that.
It doesn't matter how nicely the website renders it- if it was written with an indent of 3 spaces and you dump it into code with an indent of 4 or tabs, you're going to have problems.
Yes. I did a supplementary post to the effect that I agree with this part. And personally I believe the one true indent should have been tabs, such that everyone can have the indent size they want in their text editor, without having to reformat the source. But any single standard for what an indent is would be better than the "anything goes" we have.
Why would you need to know the punishment for passing a school bus stopped with flashers on, if you will *always* stop for it?
"IF". The test is designed to work across the population, not just for those that meet your criterion for consideration.
You have almost achieved enlightment, grasshopper
Yeah. That tactic only really works when you are addressing someone with a higher UID than you.
"Fetish" is a strange choice of word for humans being more efficient at maintaining easy to read code than hard to read code. And indenting blocks is near the top of the list of most significant aids for readability.
so why shouldn't the solution to the braces/indentation redundancy in C, Java etc. be a C-/Java-aware editor?
It might be a help. But the fact it hasn't become a common feature in IDEs raises some question marks. (Note to others, there are plenty of IDEs that indent after a curly brace. But few if any that always keep the braces and indenting of a program in sync as you describe.)
But fundamentally it's a band aid over the issue of redundancy. Whereas Python removes the redundancy.
The most common bugs in my code are when I end multiple blocks simultaneously (I tend to deindent either too far or not far enough) and forgetting to change IF to ELIF when I add a higher precedence case as the first IF condition above it.
Neither of these personal problems you have are unique to Python. And I call them personal problems because I don't have them when programming Python, and it's not a complaint I've heard from others as being a python issue. They are errors that can and are made in curly bracket languages too.
(Aside: Missing breaks for switches in C are far more common causes of logic errors than forgetting to insert and else when prepending to a compound if statement. Again, If indenting were significant in C that wouldn't happen. The outdenting of the label would end the block. Just as is intuitive for a user.)
Design is not about how it looks. It's about how it works. And Calibre is a bag of features without any overarching design. For sure it's ugly and that's a bad thing. But it's not the reason for me criticising it's UI design.
This is not intended facetiously, "simple" (and not so simple) questions crop up all the time from the millions of calibre users, and there are a lot of helpful people to answer them.
You're arguing my case for me.
offering "simple" and "advanced" interface options has been brought up several times on the calibre forums, but has been rejected
And it would be rejected by me too. Optionally hiding UI elements does not make an ill thought out application into a good one. See Azeureus (Vuze) for the mess this gets you into.
cf: Palin's "I can see Russia from my house."
People are accurately quoting Tina Fey in a SNL sketch. Unlike the Gore misquotes, this wasn't a misquote concocted for political purposes.
The reason Al Gore get's misquoted by right wingers is because they can't find much to argue with amongst what he does actually say.
So it's misquotes, insults and vague handwavey comments like "he puts out mind rot".
who can blame those who misquote him on purpose?
I can. They are liars and cheats. It says something of your lack of integrity that you don't condemn it.
I left my "evidence" out of the OP, but if you're too lazy to look up the interview yourself, here is what Gore said:
"You mentioned my movie back in the day. The single most common criticism from skeptics when the film came out focused on the animation showing ocean water flowing into the World Trade Center memorial site. Skeptics called that demagogic and absurd and irresponsible. It happened last October 29th, years ahead of schedule, and the impact of that and many, many other similar events here and around the world has really begun to create a profound shift."
That's fine and all, but Gore also claimed large swaths of the earth would be underwater by now.
So you're now giving us a quote. But saying that you don't have a problem with what he said in the quote, but with something else that he said, that you don't quote. So worthless then.
The trend for major storms since 1851 is negative. See for yourself.
Three problems there.
1) You claim the quoted statement is about hurricanes and imply it's only about hurricanes. Without quoting the bit that establishes your claim.
2) You can't simply link to a table of figures and say there's a trend.
3) That table doesn't cover the last 10 years.
What about Gore's ridiculous claim that his propaganda film predicted the effects of Hurricane Sandy, or that hurricanes are more extreme now?
If you want to make accusations about what someone said, you need to start with a direct quote. What have you got? After that we can discuss to what extent what he actually said, is right or wrong.
At the moment it's just coming across as a hater spewing bile.