I'm not happy with the tyranny of professional politicans, and after watching how well the media can "play" the people and find it impossible to be objective ("so what spin are we going to put on this?"), I certainly wouldn't trust the majority from trampling the rights of a minority just because they're unliked (regardless of whether they're logically in the right or not).
I'm not sure exactly how I would like a government to be formed. I don't necessarily believe in the right of all people to vote. People who are incapable of thinking rationally, circumspectly, and fairly shouldn't be voting. People who vote for the "tallest politican" or the "best looking candidate" shouldn't be voting either. They should get a spanking, too.
But really, considering how complex our political system is, we need full-time, brilliant minds working on uncovering the facts beneath bullshit, and then balancing each side of the issue against each other AND seeing how it applies to the constitution, regardless of personal bias. Can this happen? Maybe if there were a series of schools setup to encourage thought in a certain manner and weed out the true politicians and instead elevate the actual statesmen (and women), but how likely is that to happen? And what is to keep these men and women from creating laws that give them even more power? There's a lot of danger in this, and it could turn out to be much worse than what we have now.
As far as self governance goes, the only thing I can think of is killing off 95% of all humanity and giving people the space that they can do their own thing without intruding on their neighbors. That's not good option either.
I'm not sure I want the populace voting. Look how easily they are mislead - it doesn't matter which "side" you're on. The whole reason we do not directly elect a president (and have an electoral college) is to protect ourselves from the "tyranny of the majority". I suggest reading Henrik Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People" at some point, if you haven't already. The whole play revolves around a doctor who has determined the town's public baths (which were a tourist attraction and main source of income for the town) were contaminated and the reason why so many tourists were becoming deathly ill. He informed the people, they flipped shit, said he was making it up, declared he and his family an enemy of the people and drove him out of town.
Now, it's just a play. A story. But the truth is, that can happen at any time with the populace. (It can happen at any time with our current legislature, as well, but in theory, they're supposed to be more intelligent and open minded than that (ha!)).
I'm down with the shopping cart system, because I know it would make you (and others) happy. But I absolutely despise mouse gestures, newsgroup readers, IRC clients and especially the mail reader. As far as I'm concerned, with my computing experience, none of that belongs in a web browser. I think the damn thing does too much as it is (such as FTP, but we won't go there). That's just my personal belief. I'd like the feature set of firefox to be hacked down anymore to remove all the shit I never use (or want to use), but regardless, making it even bigger (for users such as yourself) would completely turn me off to it. Thus, the shopping cart would probably be the best way to make you and me happy.
Why is that woo? What possible reason do they have to waste time and money on improving their products, now that their immediate competition is...themselves?
Indeed, but they're talking about these webpages going up as a result of phone calls with inmates' families. If those phone calls are going to happen anyway, what's the difference of having a webpage or having their family phone another "homie" and pass on the message?
How does one effectively "badger" a witness or prosecuter from a website? Wouldn't the website...err...require said witnesses or prosecutors to...err...visit it? And, in which case, isn't that akin to going into prison and letting the convict cuss you out from behind the meeting glass?
Why am I naive for completely disregarding about whether some members of our population are pissed at some woman? That happens every fucking day. It's life. It's not even worth mentioning.
The point is, though, if the prices become prohibitively expensive, that's it. Game over.
And then some customers will get pissed off, tell Comcast to go fuck themselves, and their revenue decreases yet again. If this were to continue happening, their rates would be so high that people switch to _whatever_ else and they would go out of business OR stop being a bunch of pricks, suck up the loss and try not to do it again.
Then again, this one law suit probably isn't going to damage them enough to do any of that, but if more people ripped into them...maybe.
So basically they're saying there are now webpages that exist to infect your computer with malicious code through various browser security holes? Huh. Imagine that. I never would have thought that to be possible.
That may be, but we've heard people raving for years about MS security, most of which comes down to legacy support and the inherently bad design decisions in the code that supports that. So, they're starting to fix things, slowly. We've all predicted applications aren't going to work any longer when they make the change. But that's really just too bad. We can't really have it both ways; it wasn't done right the first time, so we either get security, or we get legacy application support. Not both.
Why would it make it infinitely worse? We've had one election since the law was passed. Before, they could just go crazy. Last election, they had to be sneaky - both of them, because they're both filled to the top with a bunch of self-important money grubbing power hungry pricks, regardless of ideology. The problem is, if I want to blog about a particular candidate - or even start a webpage devoted to kicking their ass out of or keeping their ass out of positions of power, then that's my goddam right. If you want to stop parties from spending that money, then fine, I understand your argument. I disagree with the methods (wouldn't prohibiting lobbying be a bit more effective and do a lot more good for the people? but, no, we can't have that, because then special interest groups are incapable of exercising their right to free speech - in particular lining their congresscritter's pockets...), but that isn't the point. The point is that I, as a citizen and completely independent, should never have my right to bitch and moan and complain about ANY public official, regardless of any ongoing election or not.
Aye, you knew that. In the back of your mind, perhaps. But was it something you considered often? Probably not. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. I didn't consider it often either. But maybe someone else out there who also didn't consider it often is going to pay attention now and go "oh, well, why don't we just do [solutionX]" instead, and then everyone will go "hooray!" and that'll be that? Just because you, and I, and Steve Mann can't figure out the solution doesn't mean some social Einstein or an idiot savant won't be able to. Awareness is merely the act of drawing attention to it and making sure people don't forget an unresolved problem, just like my bug tracking software sends me an email every month on bugs that haven't been dealt with, or attempted to deal with, within 30 days. Unlike my bug tracking software, we're being reminded in a relatively new and unusual way (at least in regards to the topic problem), and maybe (hopefully?) that will result in some good ideas that may possibly be put into effect. Is it definite? No. But it's better than sitting back on your ass and not doing anything at all.
It depends on whether they're blatantly ignoring it or not. If, for example, there was a bug in Photoshop that caused it to erase every file on my computer, I would file a polite (if firm) bug report. If no move was made to correct this bug (and it was verified by others as a bug), then you're damn right I would do my best to get publicity on that bug and for poor software development practices. If it takes some horrible PR to get someone's lazy ass moving on something, so be it. Frankly I don't care whether or not they think they have better things to do. That isn't my problem, just as it isn't my customer's problem whenever MY software causes catastrophic errors and I'm working on a different project or a different feature. Would it suck for me? You're goddam right it would, just as it would suck for Adobe if I (in my analogy) would do the same to them. But that's still one of the inherent pitfalls in doing business; public awareness and consumer backlash.
The point is, if you point out there's something dreadfully wrong with _anything_, you do not have to have a silver bullet that will make it go away. It's certainly most welcome, but it's not, nor should it be, mandatory. And frankly, the problem in question is not of Steve Mann's making. He doesn't have to fix it. That isn't his responsibility. If you something you do causes a problem, guess what? The onus falls on YOU to fix it. Not the person pointing it out. Even if that person is jumping around like a monkey, hooting and hollering and flinging poo. Tough titty. That's life.
I think a lot more internet viewers nowdays just glaze over ads.
I'm pretty sure that's been the status quo since the first banner ads started making their way about the internet. The best you can really hope for is some brand-name recognition later on. Adwords doesn't catch my attention at all, image banners do slightly, unless they're flash based or animated in some way, in which case they agitate me to unparalleled heights. In that case, I make it a point to remember that particular company and to never, ever do business with them again.
Of course, the last part is just my individual action. But, for the most part, people completely ignore advertisements, at least on a conscious level.
Wouldn't it make sense to swap the two, and have the "new" interface be the default one? It's the quickest way to get new users who are coming over from Photoshop. There's going to be a learning curve as it is, you don't need to make it even more crazy curvy so that the users get sick, fall off, and roll around on the floor in their own vomit.
(I guess my imagination got the better of me there;D)
Then it is no longer freedom. Freedom is absolute. In practice, this rarely - if ever - works. Don't twist words to fit new conceptions (and by new, I mean "within the last few hundred years" new) - open a dictionary, use the correct term, or coin a new one. If we never use freedom in any of our descriptions of American life, then so be it.
After I explained to him the exact concept of the game, it was a cross between horror and defeat. On one hand, he was apalled at how stupid he/they had been. On the other, he was too afraid to look like the bad guy and take the game off the kid.
As I said, Matt eventually threw his TV through his window, so it didn't matter. He never got a new one (TV), so his PS2 and GTA 3 are still sitting there, virtually unplayed.
I don't put holes in walls or throw TV sets through windows (he did that about 3 weeks after Christmas). Yelling at someone for doing something so assinine is to be expected.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not happy with the tyranny of professional politicans, and after watching how well the media can "play" the people and find it impossible to be objective ("so what spin are we going to put on this?"), I certainly wouldn't trust the majority from trampling the rights of a minority just because they're unliked (regardless of whether they're logically in the right or not).
I'm not sure exactly how I would like a government to be formed. I don't necessarily believe in the right of all people to vote. People who are incapable of thinking rationally, circumspectly, and fairly shouldn't be voting. People who vote for the "tallest politican" or the "best looking candidate" shouldn't be voting either. They should get a spanking, too.
But really, considering how complex our political system is, we need full-time, brilliant minds working on uncovering the facts beneath bullshit, and then balancing each side of the issue against each other AND seeing how it applies to the constitution, regardless of personal bias. Can this happen? Maybe if there were a series of schools setup to encourage thought in a certain manner and weed out the true politicians and instead elevate the actual statesmen (and women), but how likely is that to happen? And what is to keep these men and women from creating laws that give them even more power? There's a lot of danger in this, and it could turn out to be much worse than what we have now.
As far as self governance goes, the only thing I can think of is killing off 95% of all humanity and giving people the space that they can do their own thing without intruding on their neighbors. That's not good option either.
I'm not sure I want the populace voting. Look how easily they are mislead - it doesn't matter which "side" you're on. The whole reason we do not directly elect a president (and have an electoral college) is to protect ourselves from the "tyranny of the majority". I suggest reading Henrik Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People" at some point, if you haven't already. The whole play revolves around a doctor who has determined the town's public baths (which were a tourist attraction and main source of income for the town) were contaminated and the reason why so many tourists were becoming deathly ill. He informed the people, they flipped shit, said he was making it up, declared he and his family an enemy of the people and drove him out of town.
Now, it's just a play. A story. But the truth is, that can happen at any time with the populace. (It can happen at any time with our current legislature, as well, but in theory, they're supposed to be more intelligent and open minded than that (ha!)).
I'm down with the shopping cart system, because I know it would make you (and others) happy. But I absolutely despise mouse gestures, newsgroup readers, IRC clients and especially the mail reader. As far as I'm concerned, with my computing experience, none of that belongs in a web browser. I think the damn thing does too much as it is (such as FTP, but we won't go there). That's just my personal belief. I'd like the feature set of firefox to be hacked down anymore to remove all the shit I never use (or want to use), but regardless, making it even bigger (for users such as yourself) would completely turn me off to it. Thus, the shopping cart would probably be the best way to make you and me happy.
Just my opinion...
Why is that woo? What possible reason do they have to waste time and money on improving their products, now that their immediate competition is...themselves?
Indeed, but they're talking about these webpages going up as a result of phone calls with inmates' families. If those phone calls are going to happen anyway, what's the difference of having a webpage or having their family phone another "homie" and pass on the message?
How does one effectively "badger" a witness or prosecuter from a website? Wouldn't the website...err...require said witnesses or prosecutors to...err...visit it? And, in which case, isn't that akin to going into prison and letting the convict cuss you out from behind the meeting glass?
Why am I naive for completely disregarding about whether some members of our population are pissed at some woman? That happens every fucking day. It's life. It's not even worth mentioning.
The point is, though, if the prices become prohibitively expensive, that's it. Game over.
And then some customers will get pissed off, tell Comcast to go fuck themselves, and their revenue decreases yet again. If this were to continue happening, their rates would be so high that people switch to _whatever_ else and they would go out of business OR stop being a bunch of pricks, suck up the loss and try not to do it again.
Then again, this one law suit probably isn't going to damage them enough to do any of that, but if more people ripped into them...maybe.
So basically they're saying there are now webpages that exist to infect your computer with malicious code through various browser security holes? Huh. Imagine that. I never would have thought that to be possible.
Dot dot dot.
That may be, but we've heard people raving for years about MS security, most of which comes down to legacy support and the inherently bad design decisions in the code that supports that. So, they're starting to fix things, slowly. We've all predicted applications aren't going to work any longer when they make the change. But that's really just too bad. We can't really have it both ways; it wasn't done right the first time, so we either get security, or we get legacy application support. Not both.
Err, yeah. "right to bitch and moan and complain about ANY public official taken away, regardless of any ongoing election or not." My bad.
Why would it make it infinitely worse? We've had one election since the law was passed. Before, they could just go crazy. Last election, they had to be sneaky - both of them, because they're both filled to the top with a bunch of self-important money grubbing power hungry pricks, regardless of ideology. The problem is, if I want to blog about a particular candidate - or even start a webpage devoted to kicking their ass out of or keeping their ass out of positions of power, then that's my goddam right. If you want to stop parties from spending that money, then fine, I understand your argument. I disagree with the methods (wouldn't prohibiting lobbying be a bit more effective and do a lot more good for the people? but, no, we can't have that, because then special interest groups are incapable of exercising their right to free speech - in particular lining their congresscritter's pockets...), but that isn't the point. The point is that I, as a citizen and completely independent, should never have my right to bitch and moan and complain about ANY public official, regardless of any ongoing election or not.
Aye, you knew that. In the back of your mind, perhaps. But was it something you considered often? Probably not. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. I didn't consider it often either. But maybe someone else out there who also didn't consider it often is going to pay attention now and go "oh, well, why don't we just do [solutionX]" instead, and then everyone will go "hooray!" and that'll be that? Just because you, and I, and Steve Mann can't figure out the solution doesn't mean some social Einstein or an idiot savant won't be able to. Awareness is merely the act of drawing attention to it and making sure people don't forget an unresolved problem, just like my bug tracking software sends me an email every month on bugs that haven't been dealt with, or attempted to deal with, within 30 days. Unlike my bug tracking software, we're being reminded in a relatively new and unusual way (at least in regards to the topic problem), and maybe (hopefully?) that will result in some good ideas that may possibly be put into effect. Is it definite? No. But it's better than sitting back on your ass and not doing anything at all.
It depends on whether they're blatantly ignoring it or not. If, for example, there was a bug in Photoshop that caused it to erase every file on my computer, I would file a polite (if firm) bug report. If no move was made to correct this bug (and it was verified by others as a bug), then you're damn right I would do my best to get publicity on that bug and for poor software development practices. If it takes some horrible PR to get someone's lazy ass moving on something, so be it. Frankly I don't care whether or not they think they have better things to do. That isn't my problem, just as it isn't my customer's problem whenever MY software causes catastrophic errors and I'm working on a different project or a different feature. Would it suck for me? You're goddam right it would, just as it would suck for Adobe if I (in my analogy) would do the same to them. But that's still one of the inherent pitfalls in doing business; public awareness and consumer backlash.
The point is, if you point out there's something dreadfully wrong with _anything_, you do not have to have a silver bullet that will make it go away. It's certainly most welcome, but it's not, nor should it be, mandatory. And frankly, the problem in question is not of Steve Mann's making. He doesn't have to fix it. That isn't his responsibility. If you something you do causes a problem, guess what? The onus falls on YOU to fix it. Not the person pointing it out. Even if that person is jumping around like a monkey, hooting and hollering and flinging poo. Tough titty. That's life.
No offense, but it sounds like you're saying "if you don't know exactly how to fix something, you shouldn't even mention it's broken".
I guess I should stop sending bug reports in, then.
Unless, of course, the security in question was that of a can of tuna.
Of course, the last part is just my individual action. But, for the most part, people completely ignore advertisements, at least on a conscious level.
Not all labels. Look at emusic.com ...
I think they're up to 7.1 now, so you should be able to rock out with 14.2 :]
breathe?
Wouldn't it make sense to swap the two, and have the "new" interface be the default one? It's the quickest way to get new users who are coming over from Photoshop. There's going to be a learning curve as it is, you don't need to make it even more crazy curvy so that the users get sick, fall off, and roll around on the floor in their own vomit.
;D)
(I guess my imagination got the better of me there
Then it is no longer freedom. Freedom is absolute. In practice, this rarely - if ever - works. Don't twist words to fit new conceptions (and by new, I mean "within the last few hundred years" new) - open a dictionary, use the correct term, or coin a new one. If we never use freedom in any of our descriptions of American life, then so be it.
After I explained to him the exact concept of the game, it was a cross between horror and defeat. On one hand, he was apalled at how stupid he/they had been. On the other, he was too afraid to look like the bad guy and take the game off the kid.
As I said, Matt eventually threw his TV through his window, so it didn't matter. He never got a new one (TV), so his PS2 and GTA 3 are still sitting there, virtually unplayed.
I don't put holes in walls or throw TV sets through windows (he did that about 3 weeks after Christmas). Yelling at someone for doing something so assinine is to be expected.
It definitely could have been 16 year olds. I'm just curious to know for sure.