Easy: there's an entire goddamn war that happens between 2 and 3 where they both have lots of adventures, some together, some separate. At the end, Obi-Wan is a Jedi Master and Anakin is an experienced Jedi Knight and legendary war hero in his own right.
Umm, no according to The Wookieepedia the main char is a Human Male done by the guy who played LT in the first season of Battlestar Galactica.
You mean Crashdown. "LT" is slang for Lieutenant, just as "Gunny" is slang for Gunnery Sergeant. Crashdown, whose real name we never learned, was that particular lieutenant.
I don't know that Darth Vader's secret identity was public knowledge. Obi-Wan knew, and so did the separatist leaders Anakin killed, but as far as anyone else knew, Darth Vader was just a guy in black armor, and Anakin was a dead war hero.
That's different. If a Jedi goes on a power trip and leaves the order, he'd be a rogue Jedi. To be Sith, he would have to take up their learning. Sure, you could imagine someone finds an old Sith book and starts up with that but you would not longer have that unbroken lineage thing as presented in the movie.
Actually that's pretty much what happens: some rogue Jedi went off and founded the Sith, went extinct (or missing), and then some other rogue Jedi discovered their teachings and founded the Sith all over again. At least in the extended universe.
Sounds funny when you change the context to a different industry. The response to this is "software today is so complex", well, it isn't THAT complex. Your car has hundreds of thousands of little bitty MOVING parts. The microprocessor itself is very complex, yet we only hear about Intel bugs every decade or so.
Just about every chip ever made has documented errata, it's just that they can usually be worked around. Cars are an awful example--they need regular maintenance and fail pretty reliably after awhile.
You seem to define "matters" as true only if your vote would tie or break a tie.
Exactly. Otherwise, whether or not I vote, the same candidate wins.
One could also argue along the lines of Pascal's Wager: if you don't vote, the probability of affecting the outcome is clearly zero; if you do vote, the probability of affecting the outcome may be small, but non-zero, and the cost of voting is low.
You have to wear pants, take time off from work, stand in line for hours, and maybe even do research, literally for a less-than-getting-struck-by-lightning chance of choosing the next president/senator/governor. That's a pretty bad wager.
Or I could have exactly the same effect on the final vote tally and stay home. This has the added benefit of not requiring me to put pants on. Please explain to me why I lose the right to complain in this situation.
Furthermore (setting aside my other complaint, that maybe you don't like a single option on the ballot), my individual vote will almost certainly fail to influence a single thing. The canard you're repeating here is akin to saying "if you don't tilt at windmills you are forced to accept them, and have no right to complain". The right to complain, I'm afraid, is a fundamental human right that's rather disconnected with whether or not we participate in some symbolic act of accepting a bad democratic system.
Your thinking is too reductionistic in that it neglects to take into account the collective attitudes of voters. You say that the probability of individual votes "counting" is negligible, but that is a position that quickly loses truth value when that attitude becomes a collective value.
I'm not a collective, nor am I a collectivist. Collectively, of course, votes do matter--but it's exactly because these collectives are so large that my individual vote means even less.
The fallacy of your argument is that your definition of a vote "counting" is wrong. Not wrong in any intellectual or mathematical way, merely wrong in a philosophical or sociological way. It embodies the outlook that "what I do affects me and my surroundings only". Very "me generation". The proper outlook for this problem is the outlook that "what I do is an example to society, which if followed by the majority, would benefit all".
As I said: dogmatic bullshit trumping mathematics. Fix the system so my vote matters in a real, mathematical sense--not just in a vague moral sense. I'm not necessarily proposing election by jury although that's one of many options worth considering.
The basic idea is, in a sufficiently large election, there's a fantastically low probability that the vote will be tied (or within 1 vote of a tie) but for your vote. Since this is the only case in which your vote actually makes a difference, the probability of your vote making a difference is fantastically low, and thus there's a correspondingly high probability that your vote will make no difference. There are a few ways of getting around this: one is by making multiple thresholds of your vote mattering, one is by forcing a low sample size. In practice, the ability to influence the votes of others is also important. But straight up-and-down secret-ballot first-past-the-post voting systems, like we have in America, pretty much minimize the probability of your vote making any difference.
Compare this to, for instance, a jury. A jury is a small sample size in which every juror has the ability to influence the votes of others. Also, due to the unanimity requirement, every juror has the power to make a difference, and a truly intransigent juror can single-handedly force a mistrial via hung jury. Even in a caucus, a caucusgoer can influence the votes of others and there can be multiple thresholds of "making a difference" (i.e. a minimum level of support for a candidate to be considered "viable") rather than just the single threshold of putting your candidate over the top, or into a tied position.
The actual proposition to be proven would probably be some relation between voting population and probability of any given individual's vote mattering under any given voting system. There could be different relations and different proofs for different systems, or perhaps a single theorem could cover all cases. Discovering and proving that relation is left as an exercise to the reader--but I hope my argument was illustrative if not convincing.
I guess my point is that, even absent these hidden features, the UI is perfectly usable and discoverable. The hidden features are just shortcuts on top of it for power users. There's no need for you to learn and use them and if they just stripped them out it wouldn't make any difference in my life, nor I imagine yours.
The difference between that and a novice's first application is that a novice would implement obscure controls and give you no other way to replicate their function. Apple's UIs usually have three or four ways to activate the same function, most of which are blindingly obvious if you look through menus or hover over buttons, some of which are less obvious to pick up (keyboard shortcuts for menu options) but still doable if you understand the pattern, and some of which probably require looking it up in help.
But, Apple's UI isn't necessarily perfect. either, and maybe there are good ways of making these things more obvious.
Unfortunately, you're implying the converse when the converse isn't really true. The fact is: vote, but still no difference. This can be mathematically proven but the dogma of democracy is above such silly notions as "proof".
Or...since you already have contextual menus, you could just choose not to use the other features they include. Honestly, I had spent my entire life up to this conversation without it even occurring to me to hold down the option key while pressing the delete key with a song selected in an iTunes playlist, and I think I can live the rest of my life without ever doing that--knowing what that did never really mattered in my life. So maybe I don't understand.
Pretty much everything you can do is "discoverable". For instance, I never knew, and it never really bothered me that I didn't know, that option-deleting a song from a playlist deletes it from your library. However, it's intuitive for the delete key to delete things, so selecting a song in the library and hitting "delete" works pretty much as anyone would expect.
If you have concrete ideas about how this could be improved, I might be inclined to agree with you. I suspect that you're really just trolling, though.
I'm not talking about keyboard shortcuts that use an option key
Forgive me, I thought you were talking about:
...holding alt when using a keyboard shortcut, does something magically different
but I was mistaken.
For example, in iTunes, the keyboard shortcut "delete" is not indicated in the menu as a shortcut for the delete operation key. It does, however, delete the currently selected item from a playlist, and option-delete deletes the currently selected item from your iTunes library.
Ah, that's what you meant. The information you're looking for, in iTunes, is under "Keyboard Shortcuts" in the "Help" menu.
Sounds like some of you have never truly experienced love. Love isn't the action, it's the motivation to action. Carrying out the same action without the emotion profanes the very idea of love. If you commit yourself to another person out of genuine respect and adoration, that's love. If you commit yourself to another person out of a sense of duty long after that respect and adoration has been lost, that's deception and slavery masquerading as love.
The keyboard shortcuts that use the option key have a symbol in the menu that indicates that option is used. I'm personally unaware of places where command-click and option-click actually do much (outside of Safari) so I can't comment on the other cases.
Yeah, and if he were elected, and he created a gold backed currency the price of gold would likely DROP. The only reason gold is priced so high since 9/11 is because of our irrational fiscal and foreign policies. Gold is a hedge vs inflation, so implementing a rational fiscal policy would actually hurt gold's value.
According to the present value of gold, the entire world doesn't have a large enough gold reserve to cover the US GDP, much less the world GDP. You're saying that it would successfully do so even if its value dropped? I'd hate to see what Ron Paul would do to the GDP in order to make that balance out. I'm also not convinced that making gold legal tender again would decrease its value in the first place.
Ron Paul is also known as "Dr. No" because he's an obstetrician who always votes against new legislation. For his presidential campaign he decided to reinvent himself as Goldfinger.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy: there's an entire goddamn war that happens between 2 and 3 where they both have lots of adventures, some together, some separate. At the end, Obi-Wan is a Jedi Master and Anakin is an experienced Jedi Knight and legendary war hero in his own right.
You mean Crashdown. "LT" is slang for Lieutenant, just as "Gunny" is slang for Gunnery Sergeant. Crashdown, whose real name we never learned, was that particular lieutenant.
I don't know that Darth Vader's secret identity was public knowledge. Obi-Wan knew, and so did the separatist leaders Anakin killed, but as far as anyone else knew, Darth Vader was just a guy in black armor, and Anakin was a dead war hero.
Actually that's pretty much what happens: some rogue Jedi went off and founded the Sith, went extinct (or missing), and then some other rogue Jedi discovered their teachings and founded the Sith all over again. At least in the extended universe.
Just about every chip ever made has documented errata, it's just that they can usually be worked around. Cars are an awful example--they need regular maintenance and fail pretty reliably after awhile.
Exactly. Otherwise, whether or not I vote, the same candidate wins.
One could also argue along the lines of Pascal's Wager: if you don't vote, the probability of affecting the outcome is clearly zero; if you do vote, the probability of affecting the outcome may be small, but non-zero, and the cost of voting is low.You have to wear pants, take time off from work, stand in line for hours, and maybe even do research, literally for a less-than-getting-struck-by-lightning chance of choosing the next president/senator/governor. That's a pretty bad wager.
I'm also part of a collective who is wearing pants at the moment, but I hardly see how that is relevant.
Or I could have exactly the same effect on the final vote tally and stay home. This has the added benefit of not requiring me to put pants on. Please explain to me why I lose the right to complain in this situation.
Furthermore (setting aside my other complaint, that maybe you don't like a single option on the ballot), my individual vote will almost certainly fail to influence a single thing. The canard you're repeating here is akin to saying "if you don't tilt at windmills you are forced to accept them, and have no right to complain". The right to complain, I'm afraid, is a fundamental human right that's rather disconnected with whether or not we participate in some symbolic act of accepting a bad democratic system.
I'm not a collective, nor am I a collectivist. Collectively, of course, votes do matter--but it's exactly because these collectives are so large that my individual vote means even less.
As I said: dogmatic bullshit trumping mathematics. Fix the system so my vote matters in a real, mathematical sense--not just in a vague moral sense. I'm not necessarily proposing election by jury although that's one of many options worth considering.
What if I don't like a single candidate on the ballot?
The basic idea is, in a sufficiently large election, there's a fantastically low probability that the vote will be tied (or within 1 vote of a tie) but for your vote. Since this is the only case in which your vote actually makes a difference, the probability of your vote making a difference is fantastically low, and thus there's a correspondingly high probability that your vote will make no difference. There are a few ways of getting around this: one is by making multiple thresholds of your vote mattering, one is by forcing a low sample size. In practice, the ability to influence the votes of others is also important. But straight up-and-down secret-ballot first-past-the-post voting systems, like we have in America, pretty much minimize the probability of your vote making any difference.
Compare this to, for instance, a jury. A jury is a small sample size in which every juror has the ability to influence the votes of others. Also, due to the unanimity requirement, every juror has the power to make a difference, and a truly intransigent juror can single-handedly force a mistrial via hung jury. Even in a caucus, a caucusgoer can influence the votes of others and there can be multiple thresholds of "making a difference" (i.e. a minimum level of support for a candidate to be considered "viable") rather than just the single threshold of putting your candidate over the top, or into a tied position.
The actual proposition to be proven would probably be some relation between voting population and probability of any given individual's vote mattering under any given voting system. There could be different relations and different proofs for different systems, or perhaps a single theorem could cover all cases. Discovering and proving that relation is left as an exercise to the reader--but I hope my argument was illustrative if not convincing.
I guess my point is that, even absent these hidden features, the UI is perfectly usable and discoverable. The hidden features are just shortcuts on top of it for power users. There's no need for you to learn and use them and if they just stripped them out it wouldn't make any difference in my life, nor I imagine yours.
The difference between that and a novice's first application is that a novice would implement obscure controls and give you no other way to replicate their function. Apple's UIs usually have three or four ways to activate the same function, most of which are blindingly obvious if you look through menus or hover over buttons, some of which are less obvious to pick up (keyboard shortcuts for menu options) but still doable if you understand the pattern, and some of which probably require looking it up in help.
But, Apple's UI isn't necessarily perfect. either, and maybe there are good ways of making these things more obvious.
Unfortunately, you're implying the converse when the converse isn't really true. The fact is: vote, but still no difference. This can be mathematically proven but the dogma of democracy is above such silly notions as "proof".
Or...since you already have contextual menus, you could just choose not to use the other features they include. Honestly, I had spent my entire life up to this conversation without it even occurring to me to hold down the option key while pressing the delete key with a song selected in an iTunes playlist, and I think I can live the rest of my life without ever doing that--knowing what that did never really mattered in my life. So maybe I don't understand.
Pretty much everything you can do is "discoverable". For instance, I never knew, and it never really bothered me that I didn't know, that option-deleting a song from a playlist deletes it from your library. However, it's intuitive for the delete key to delete things, so selecting a song in the library and hitting "delete" works pretty much as anyone would expect.
If you have concrete ideas about how this could be improved, I might be inclined to agree with you. I suspect that you're really just trolling, though.
Forgive me, I thought you were talking about:
...holding alt when using a keyboard shortcut, does something magically differentbut I was mistaken.
For example, in iTunes, the keyboard shortcut "delete" is not indicated in the menu as a shortcut for the delete operation key. It does, however, delete the currently selected item from a playlist, and option-delete deletes the currently selected item from your iTunes library.Ah, that's what you meant. The information you're looking for, in iTunes, is under "Keyboard Shortcuts" in the "Help" menu.
...and when you have to report back to the state on what you've done with their funding, perhaps there is less temptation to cook the books.Mod parent funny.
Sounds like some of you have never truly experienced love. Love isn't the action, it's the motivation to action. Carrying out the same action without the emotion profanes the very idea of love. If you commit yourself to another person out of genuine respect and adoration, that's love. If you commit yourself to another person out of a sense of duty long after that respect and adoration has been lost, that's deception and slavery masquerading as love.
The keyboard shortcuts that use the option key have a symbol in the menu that indicates that option is used. I'm personally unaware of places where command-click and option-click actually do much (outside of Safari) so I can't comment on the other cases.
Personally, I would ask your neighbor to shut his doors and windows. And if it's coming through the walls, that's between you and your landlord.
Ah, the Cato Institute, truly the most neutral of all institutions for the study of economics.
According to the present value of gold, the entire world doesn't have a large enough gold reserve to cover the US GDP, much less the world GDP. You're saying that it would successfully do so even if its value dropped? I'd hate to see what Ron Paul would do to the GDP in order to make that balance out. I'm also not convinced that making gold legal tender again would decrease its value in the first place.
Ron Paul is also known as "Dr. No" because he's an obstetrician who always votes against new legislation. For his presidential campaign he decided to reinvent himself as Goldfinger.
Seriously, though, you're right.