I think it is illegal to steal someone's WiFi router. Oh, you mean simply logging onto someone's network? Yeah, that can be prevented if I set my router on any setting except "LOOK AT ME I'M AN UNSECURED WIRELESS NETWORK EVERYONE LOG ON!".
You could have a big "computer" icon on your screen somewhere (persistently, that couldn't be covered) that could be right-clicked to "shut down", etc. Or, you could have an Apple menu at the top left corner of the screen (persistently, that can't be covered) that could be clicked to "shut down", etc. Congratulations! You've re-created the Apple menu that we already had!
Well, let me list every single menu item in my current menubar that couldn't be pictorally represented onscreen any more efficiently than simply having a main menu item: About this Mac, System Preferences, Recent Items, Sleep, Restart, Shut Down, Log Out, New Window, Open File, Spelling submenu, Special Characters... (opens Character Palette), entire History menu, entire Bookmarks menu, Merge All Windows, Downloads, Activity, entire Help menu. Most of those are global to some extent.
controlling your world through physical force. ie, the gun. rather than writing, thought and speech
And if it really came down to it, which of those two would win out? Writing, thought, and speech are only proxies to organize physical force. They are not solutions in and of themselves.
In 1996, China shot off a few missiles and announced "military exercises" in the Taiwan Straits around the time of a Taiwanese election. Clinton wisely sent a couple of aircraft carriers to "make an appearance", reiterating US policy.
You know, Linux far transcends the personal computer to the point where asking "how many Linux users are there" is silly and pointless. If your TiVo, the web server you visit on your Mac, your Roomba, and your Linksys router all run Linux, you still aren't really a Linux user. Maybe that's why attempts to count Linux users remain pointless?
That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Hiding everything in contextual menus means that if you want to do something, you have to go on a wild goose chase all over your screen to find which contextual menu the function is hidden in.
However, it would be great for my home computer. It would make responding to all my personal e-mail much quicker. Not to mention things like grocery lists, etc.
My parents were retired before I was born, so I had almost-unlimited amounts of their attention, as well as a very big yard. But, unless you have more than one kid, or unless you desperately want your kids to grow up to be introverted loners, it's probably best to live in an actual neighborhood so they have other kids to play with at, say, a neighborhood park. Then they can invite their friends over for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and videogames...(sigh of wasted childhood)
Then it's, perhaps, fortunate that you aren't a parent. Those who are, however, probably should play with their kids, lest their kids not be raised properly and end up beating you to death with your own cane 20 years from now.
This is also why we don't see anyone running trying to put in laws setting up a body to censor books. If someone advocated rating and censoring books, even the dullest of Americans might realize that they are getting their free speech stomped on and react negatively.
You wanna bet? Lots of Americans don't read. All the media they ingest (movies, videogames, TV) is already censored. If someone came along advocating ratings for books, arguing that TV, movies, and videogames were already rated, who would argue against it? People who read books. Considering the anti-intellectualism of American culture, it would be framed as "family values" vs. "cultural elitists" (aka "those uppity people who read books"), and you know who's going to win that fight.
The main hazard of using reductio ad absurdum is that some people will follow you straight to the very same absurd consequence that was supposed to discredit their premises to begin with. This is why yesterday's dystopian fiction is today's standard operating procedure.
I think what's really tedious is the recursive series of meta-complaints that posts like yours tend to generate sometimes, and yet somehow get modded funny.
Would you rather someone fake being a managerial asshole to fit in with the managers (and get hired) while genuinely being a good person, or vice versa?
True, but if you're interviewing for a management position, you're going to have to affect that attitude, just like other situations where you deal with other managers. That doesn't mean you have to genuinely feel that way, or (even worse) act that way towards your employees.
Of course, but managers speak a different language--that's simply their way of saying "I get to know my employees and chat them up to see how they're doing".
Climate. Lots of people find that their moods are affected by weather, and America has enough weather variation that you can have year-round summer, a beautiful mix of seasons, a year-round rainy temperate climate, pretty much any climate you could want, actually. If you go very far south of the US, it's uncomfortably hot and there's a lot of insects--and, even if you like the tropics, I don't think any tropical countries have a standard of living comparable to the US or Europe. If you go very far north of the US, it's a frozen wasteland (the vast majority of Canadians are extremely close to the U.S border!)
He also ignores the vast array of work on non-deterministic algorithms, stating that "Any program utilising random input to carry out its process, such...is not an algorithm". Sure, it's not a deterministic algorithm...
I always understood a deterministic system (algorithmic, physical, etc.) as being a system in which there is only one possible output for any given set of inputs--there is only one result state for any given set of initial conditions, in other words. Has computer science come up with a different definition of "determinism" all of a sudden?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is illegal to steal someone's WiFi router. Oh, you mean simply logging onto someone's network? Yeah, that can be prevented if I set my router on any setting except "LOOK AT ME I'M AN UNSECURED WIRELESS NETWORK EVERYONE LOG ON!".
Go ahead.
You could have a big "computer" icon on your screen somewhere (persistently, that couldn't be covered) that could be right-clicked to "shut down", etc. Or, you could have an Apple menu at the top left corner of the screen (persistently, that can't be covered) that could be clicked to "shut down", etc. Congratulations! You've re-created the Apple menu that we already had!
Well, let me list every single menu item in my current menubar that couldn't be pictorally represented onscreen any more efficiently than simply having a main menu item: About this Mac, System Preferences, Recent Items, Sleep, Restart, Shut Down, Log Out, New Window, Open File, Spelling submenu, Special Characters... (opens Character Palette), entire History menu, entire Bookmarks menu, Merge All Windows, Downloads, Activity, entire Help menu. Most of those are global to some extent.
And if it really came down to it, which of those two would win out? Writing, thought, and speech are only proxies to organize physical force. They are not solutions in and of themselves.
In 1996, China shot off a few missiles and announced "military exercises" in the Taiwan Straits around the time of a Taiwanese election. Clinton wisely sent a couple of aircraft carriers to "make an appearance", reiterating US policy.
You know, Linux far transcends the personal computer to the point where asking "how many Linux users are there" is silly and pointless. If your TiVo, the web server you visit on your Mac, your Roomba, and your Linksys router all run Linux, you still aren't really a Linux user. Maybe that's why attempts to count Linux users remain pointless?
That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Hiding everything in contextual menus means that if you want to do something, you have to go on a wild goose chase all over your screen to find which contextual menu the function is hidden in.
Especially if you buy a lot of Earl Grey tea!
Because they hover and spray, which is way less accurate than standing and aiming.
My parents were retired before I was born, so I had almost-unlimited amounts of their attention, as well as a very big yard. But, unless you have more than one kid, or unless you desperately want your kids to grow up to be introverted loners, it's probably best to live in an actual neighborhood so they have other kids to play with at, say, a neighborhood park. Then they can invite their friends over for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and videogames...(sigh of wasted childhood)
Then it's, perhaps, fortunate that you aren't a parent. Those who are, however, probably should play with their kids, lest their kids not be raised properly and end up beating you to death with your own cane 20 years from now.
Well, your first mistake is that not paying the mortgage gets you foreclosed upon. Not paying the rent gets you evicted.
You wanna bet? Lots of Americans don't read. All the media they ingest (movies, videogames, TV) is already censored. If someone came along advocating ratings for books, arguing that TV, movies, and videogames were already rated, who would argue against it? People who read books. Considering the anti-intellectualism of American culture, it would be framed as "family values" vs. "cultural elitists" (aka "those uppity people who read books"), and you know who's going to win that fight.
The main hazard of using reductio ad absurdum is that some people will follow you straight to the very same absurd consequence that was supposed to discredit their premises to begin with. This is why yesterday's dystopian fiction is today's standard operating procedure.
I think what's really tedious is the recursive series of meta-complaints that posts like yours tend to generate sometimes, and yet somehow get modded funny.
Would you rather someone fake being a managerial asshole to fit in with the managers (and get hired) while genuinely being a good person, or vice versa?
Everyone on Slashdot is crying bloody murder, particularly you. That's what makes the comments to these articles so tedious to read.
Out: iPhone.
In: Open Source iPhone Killer.
True, but if you're interviewing for a management position, you're going to have to affect that attitude, just like other situations where you deal with other managers. That doesn't mean you have to genuinely feel that way, or (even worse) act that way towards your employees.
Of course, but managers speak a different language--that's simply their way of saying "I get to know my employees and chat them up to see how they're doing".
Setting aside the shut down vs. sleep mode argument, can't most computers boot themselves by now?
Climate. Lots of people find that their moods are affected by weather, and America has enough weather variation that you can have year-round summer, a beautiful mix of seasons, a year-round rainy temperate climate, pretty much any climate you could want, actually. If you go very far south of the US, it's uncomfortably hot and there's a lot of insects--and, even if you like the tropics, I don't think any tropical countries have a standard of living comparable to the US or Europe. If you go very far north of the US, it's a frozen wasteland (the vast majority of Canadians are extremely close to the U.S border!)
Considering that Jobs took over the Mac project and managed it throughout the early 80's, I find that unlikely.
I always understood a deterministic system (algorithmic, physical, etc.) as being a system in which there is only one possible output for any given set of inputs--there is only one result state for any given set of initial conditions, in other words. Has computer science come up with a different definition of "determinism" all of a sudden?
Actually, Leibniz was trying to prove his "monadology" by studying infinitesimals--it had nothing to do with studying physical phenomena at all.