Funny you should mention that. I've shifted Macs lately, and the d@mn new one doesn't handle it correctly. I plug in the 3-button scroll-wheel mouse, the latest MouseWare driver loads (I know it's the latest, I've checked their update site - v5.2.1) and it refuses to let me set the middle button as Middle Button.
Uh, you don't have to install drivers at all. Mac OS X automatically recognizes up to three mouse buttons and the scroll wheel.
Finally, it isn't about ability to memorize. It is about USABILITY and comfort, particularly when doing repetative tasks. KEY+MOUSE requires two hands, slowing down a typist significantly, while RIGHT/MIDDLE CLICK requires only 1 hand, leaving the other where it belongs, ready to type.
Wrong.
Right-click allows your typing hand to wander, whereas key+mouse requires your typing hand to stay on the keyboard, where it belongs, ready to type.
People said Bill Gates was crazy when he said hardware will be free, but I can see it happening now.
No, people said Bill Gates was crazy when he said hardware will be free and software won't. Given that this is Slashdot, that wasn't a surprising reaction.
Yet, on one of their programs, one of the church leaders in Bejing reported that the government was not stifling state-allowed religions
How about state-disallowed religions?
The Christian Science Monitor, which is a non-partisan newspaper I like to read online sometimes, wrote an article about Tiananmen Square. How many students were killed, run over by tanks, and otherwise butchered? The answer: We don't know. In fact, evidence is starting to show that no students were killed in the square at all. When there's no foreign reporters around, and the government is the only one that's talking, it is indeed dramatic misportrayal of the facts that tends to take over. That said, estimates of fatalities outside the square range vary, but it was *after* the peaceful protest left the square.
Wait, so the Chinese killed the protesters AFTER they dispersed from the square, and that's somehow better?
I've seen photographs of Chinese protesters turned into paste underneath the tracks of PLA tanks. Was that dramatic misportrayal?
Some people do because Apple (and other premium brand companies) can make these people believe that the cash they are handing over is worth LESS than what they get.
Well, the basic premise of buying something is that the thing is worth more to you than the money. Otherwise you'd rather keep the money.
Apart from anything, ThinkSecret is not in any contractual agreement with Apple.
You don't know that. They've published prerelease screenshots of Mac OS X that come from developer releases--perhaps DePlume or some other contributor had an ADC membership which (incidentally) requires signing an NDA?
Anyone who thinks Apple should win this should consider the question: at the core, how different is Nick dePlume's journalism from what Woodward and Bernstein were doing to uncover Watergate?
Watergate was an illegal activity that isn't protected by trade secret law while the Mac mini is perfectly legal and was, at the time, protected as a trade secret?
Maybe research shouldn't be government funded anyway. But there are few moral objections stronger than the objection to murder. Compelling people to finance what they believe is murder goes far beyond any reasonable bounds.
Not necessarily, but it does make the parent post more INSIGHTFUL or may even make it FUNNY if you understand the joke, and those are...up-moderations. Yeah.
Set at the point soon after Klingons join the Federation, two human Starfleet cadets are assigned to a Klingon ship. It would be the ultimate culture clash.
This could really take off. Geeks, homosexuals, and disaffected teenagers would identify with the Starfleet cadets trying to fit in. But only if it was done right.
Internal corporate politics. There are people at UPN who don't want Enterprise on the air. They don't have enough pull to cancel it, but they do have enough pull to reschedule it to a Friday night death slot opposite SG-1.
Why do so many TV show and movie makers think that Sci-Fi is exclusively about technology? Good Sci-Fi uses the technology as a backdrop to character development and asking interesting questions. Technology is a vehicle not the destination.
This is almost paraphrasing what Gene Roddenberry himself said when explaining out the premise of Star Trek.
I agree to a point. But as the article I cited demonstrates, it's often contrary to human nature to remain cofident and successfull when oppressed. Therefore, you have to do more than just say "pony up and I'll treat you as an equal." Since the playing field is already uneven, you need to make it uneven in the other direction to achieve equality.
Well, you have to make it survivable if not advantageous for the oppressed to become confident and successful. But with regards to women, that step's been taken. The ball is in their court now, and the successful women of today are the ones who know what they have to do and do it. The ones who sit back whining and acting like women from the 1950's are the ones who lose out, but they're bringing it upon themselves. It's not like the days when they were actually oppressed.
Try going back and rereading my original message. You're just rephrasing the exact same things I'm saying. People in oppressed populations need to stand up for themselves and adopt the same successful traits as those in unoppressed populations. It's heroic and out of the norm, but it's a necessary part of ending oppression. And, obviously, acceptance and help by the dominant population is required. But as a man, my help to any person's attempt to succeed depends upon her abandonment of submissive underperformance and adoption of confident, successful attitudes. Any woman who continues to act submissive, helpless, and unproductive chooses to remain oppressed.
My apologies. I meant "social and professional advancement." If you were interested in enlightened discourse rather than small-minded ad hominem attacks, you'd have known this.
One of the hallmarks of enlightened discourse is precision in language.
Because historically, the vast majority of hardworking persons are male. If we want to change this (and I certainly do), then women should abandon the traits and behaviors that suited them well as submissive housewives and instead adopt some of the same productive traits that working men have developed.
Perhaps if you'd lived a few centuries ago you'd be saying "look, if you want to get on the white section of the bus, ACT white!"
Try "decades". Besides, that's an utterly idiotic statement--"acting" one way or another never made anyone exempt to the rules of segregation. However, the blacks who succeeded to overcome segregation and racism didn't act like the oppressed, concilatory, submissive blacks that predominated during most of our racist past. They acted with the confidence that they by all rights possessed the same rights as any white man. In that sense, they did "act white". And, over time, it's becoming more and more typical for blacks to be confident in their rights, so "to act white" no longer has that meaning to them.
Similarly, women shouldn't act submissive, meek, and oppressed--they should be confident that they could compete with any man in the room--in other words, "like a man". As soon as women do this, it won't be considered "feminine" to act meek and submissive, just pitiful. And when they continue to act this way, we won't say they're "taking it like men" anymore, because by that time, men won't have a monopoly on confidence and thick-skinned toughness.
Try to remember that success is not the end goal
Actually, I think that's the definition of "success".
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you should mention that. I've shifted Macs lately, and the d@mn new one doesn't handle it correctly. I plug in the 3-button scroll-wheel mouse, the latest MouseWare driver loads (I know it's the latest, I've checked their update site - v5.2.1) and it refuses to let me set the middle button as Middle Button.
Uh, you don't have to install drivers at all. Mac OS X automatically recognizes up to three mouse buttons and the scroll wheel.
Finally, it isn't about ability to memorize. It is about USABILITY and comfort, particularly when doing repetative tasks. KEY+MOUSE requires two hands, slowing down a typist significantly, while RIGHT/MIDDLE CLICK requires only 1 hand, leaving the other where it belongs, ready to type.
Wrong.
Right-click allows your typing hand to wander, whereas key+mouse requires your typing hand to stay on the keyboard, where it belongs, ready to type.
People said Bill Gates was crazy when he said hardware will be free, but I can see it happening now.
No, people said Bill Gates was crazy when he said hardware will be free and software won't. Given that this is Slashdot, that wasn't a surprising reaction.
Yet, on one of their programs, one of the church leaders in Bejing reported that the government was not stifling state-allowed religions
How about state-disallowed religions?
The Christian Science Monitor, which is a non-partisan newspaper I like to read online sometimes, wrote an article about Tiananmen Square. How many students were killed, run over by tanks, and otherwise butchered? The answer: We don't know. In fact, evidence is starting to show that no students were killed in the square at all. When there's no foreign reporters around, and the government is the only one that's talking, it is indeed dramatic misportrayal of the facts that tends to take over. That said, estimates of fatalities outside the square range vary, but it was *after* the peaceful protest left the square.
Wait, so the Chinese killed the protesters AFTER they dispersed from the square, and that's somehow better?
I've seen photographs of Chinese protesters turned into paste underneath the tracks of PLA tanks. Was that dramatic misportrayal?
The human species is ultimately doomed, and I join the rest of the planet in saying good fucking riddance.
a nly_suicide
If that's how you feel, you first. Here's a guide: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=m
Some people do because Apple (and other premium brand companies) can make these people believe that the cash they are handing over is worth LESS than what they get.
Well, the basic premise of buying something is that the thing is worth more to you than the money. Otherwise you'd rather keep the money.
Apart from anything, ThinkSecret is not in any contractual agreement with Apple.
You don't know that. They've published prerelease screenshots of Mac OS X that come from developer releases--perhaps DePlume or some other contributor had an ADC membership which (incidentally) requires signing an NDA?
Anyone who thinks Apple should win this should consider the question: at the core, how different is Nick dePlume's journalism from what Woodward and Bernstein were doing to uncover Watergate?
Watergate was an illegal activity that isn't protected by trade secret law while the Mac mini is perfectly legal and was, at the time, protected as a trade secret?
You keep saying that as if it's a counterargument. I agree with you.
That's my point. Add, "I have a problem with that" onto the end of your message and you're just restating what I said.
Maybe research shouldn't be government funded anyway. But there are few moral objections stronger than the objection to murder. Compelling people to finance what they believe is murder goes far beyond any reasonable bounds.
Should any taxpayer be compelled to pay for scientific research that he is morally opposed to, and that he considers to be murder?
WiMax. They'll just redefine WiMax to something else in order to stay consistent.
How the hell is Slashdot going to go down? Being linked to by some low-bandwidth site in Soviet Russia?
The moon is representative of the American people?
I'll be even more impressed if they don't stick a "Fly Virgin" red and white sticker on it.
Yeah, it's terrible. I mean, it's not like governments would, say, stick THEIR logos or flags on anything going into spa--...uh, never mind.
Not necessarily, but it does make the parent post more INSIGHTFUL or may even make it FUNNY if you understand the joke, and those are...up-moderations. Yeah.
The original 1970's Battlestar Galactica was an allegory of Mormon scriptures.
http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/general.html for details, scroll down.
Set at the point soon after Klingons join the Federation, two human Starfleet cadets are assigned to a Klingon ship. It would be the ultimate culture clash.
This could really take off. Geeks, homosexuals, and disaffected teenagers would identify with the Starfleet cadets trying to fit in. But only if it was done right.
Internal corporate politics. There are people at UPN who don't want Enterprise on the air. They don't have enough pull to cancel it, but they do have enough pull to reschedule it to a Friday night death slot opposite SG-1.
Why do so many TV show and movie makers think that Sci-Fi is exclusively about technology? Good Sci-Fi uses the technology as a backdrop to character development and asking interesting questions. Technology is a vehicle not the destination.
This is almost paraphrasing what Gene Roddenberry himself said when explaining out the premise of Star Trek.
I agree to a point. But as the article I cited demonstrates, it's often contrary to human nature to remain cofident and successfull when oppressed. Therefore, you have to do more than just say "pony up and I'll treat you as an equal." Since the playing field is already uneven, you need to make it uneven in the other direction to achieve equality.
Well, you have to make it survivable if not advantageous for the oppressed to become confident and successful. But with regards to women, that step's been taken. The ball is in their court now, and the successful women of today are the ones who know what they have to do and do it. The ones who sit back whining and acting like women from the 1950's are the ones who lose out, but they're bringing it upon themselves. It's not like the days when they were actually oppressed.
Try going back and rereading my original message. You're just rephrasing the exact same things I'm saying. People in oppressed populations need to stand up for themselves and adopt the same successful traits as those in unoppressed populations. It's heroic and out of the norm, but it's a necessary part of ending oppression. And, obviously, acceptance and help by the dominant population is required. But as a man, my help to any person's attempt to succeed depends upon her abandonment of submissive underperformance and adoption of confident, successful attitudes. Any woman who continues to act submissive, helpless, and unproductive chooses to remain oppressed.
My apologies. I meant "social and professional advancement." If you were interested in enlightened discourse rather than small-minded ad hominem attacks, you'd have known this.
One of the hallmarks of enlightened discourse is precision in language.
Because historically, the vast majority of hardworking persons are male. If we want to change this (and I certainly do), then women should abandon the traits and behaviors that suited them well as submissive housewives and instead adopt some of the same productive traits that working men have developed.
Perhaps if you'd lived a few centuries ago you'd be saying "look, if you want to get on the white section of the bus, ACT white!"
Try "decades". Besides, that's an utterly idiotic statement--"acting" one way or another never made anyone exempt to the rules of segregation. However, the blacks who succeeded to overcome segregation and racism didn't act like the oppressed, concilatory, submissive blacks that predominated during most of our racist past. They acted with the confidence that they by all rights possessed the same rights as any white man. In that sense, they did "act white". And, over time, it's becoming more and more typical for blacks to be confident in their rights, so "to act white" no longer has that meaning to them.
Similarly, women shouldn't act submissive, meek, and oppressed--they should be confident that they could compete with any man in the room--in other words, "like a man". As soon as women do this, it won't be considered "feminine" to act meek and submissive, just pitiful. And when they continue to act this way, we won't say they're "taking it like men" anymore, because by that time, men won't have a monopoly on confidence and thick-skinned toughness.
Try to remember that success is not the end goal
Actually, I think that's the definition of "success".