So where is that water going? Since we don't have any working fusion yet, it's not being destroyed. And I see no evidence that we have more clouds or higher ocean levels. So where is it going?
I think you're confusing watersheds with urban aquifers. The watershed for San Fransisco consists of several million acres of Sierra wilderness. On the other hand, the town of Alviso disappeared because it sucked its aquifer dry and sunk into San Fransisco bay. But other towns around the bay and at the same starting elevation, have not met the same fate, because their underground geologies are different.
The user shouldn't have to figure out what the developer means by "Yes" or "No" in relation to the message in the box.
Call me an elitist, but I've no use for users who don't know what "yes" and "no" mean. Seriously. If my dialog text has bad grammar, then tell me and I'll fix it. If it's ambiguous, then tell me and I'll fix it. But slavish adherence to out-of-ass usability rules just so slashdot posters are happy is something I won't do.
I have written dialogs that used verbs instead of answers, when it makes sense. But I am not going to design my dialogs with the assumption that my users are idiots. I have too much respect for them to do that.
There's also another factor, and that's the coding itself. Most confirmation dialogs can be written as boolean functions, and even used within if statements. Yes==true ; no==false. Getting away from this perfect mapping is dangerous, because if we're asking a boolean true/false question, we should be getting a boolean true/false answer back.
When the buttons explicitly tell the user what the choice is going to do, it is easy for the user to pick out the correct choice without having to think about whether "Yes" means one thing or another.
So why not put the entire dialog text into a button? That's the result if you keep following your chain of logic. Because you're assuming that the user will never read the actual dialog text. Well if not, why put it there at all?
To reiterate, if my dialog text has bad grammar, is confusing, or does not lend itself to a simple boolean yes/no answer, then log a bug and I'll fix it.
A properly designed dialog box does not force the user to think about what the choices will actually do.
Aaargh! We've dumbed down the UI to the level of the flatworm! Why don't we just have a dialog box that has a nice smiley face and single button labeled "okey dokey"?
If OSX is about not thinking, then keep it the hell away from me.
$300-400 isn't a real server. At best it makes a disposable print server or workgroup file server. For a real (as in profit generating) server you want reliability and efficiency, and you're not going to get that for $300-400.
Not sure what the difference is between a bribe and campaign donation
Well, if it's before the candiate achieves office, then it can't be a bribe. For other cases though, it's allowed because you don't want to be arresting elderly grandmothers for contributing $10 to a campaign. Seriously.
Campaign contributions are a free speech issue, and any movement to limit them is limiting free speech. Public financing is a scheme to guarantee offices to incumbents and their handpicked successors. We should be getting rid of welfare to corporations instead of adding welfare to politicians.
You basically have to read the entire alert to even know what's being asked...
Pardon me for being dense, but what the fsck is wrong with that? Let me guess, the next Apple interface won't even have text, and dialog messages will consist of pantomime quicktime movies...
A number of these walltops, when connected, can host a slideshow that can show digitized images.
You submitters need to start learning how to summarize the articles you submit. Reading the above description, I'm completely unimpressed. I don't need a wall of laptops to show digitized images. My current desktop can handle that task just peachy, thank you.
The decline in software jobs is merely a balance for the glut of programmers in the dot.boom. Back in 2000 you could get a $70k job as a junior college dropout with only an intro class to Java under your belt. What the market is doing now is shedding that excess fat and refusing to hire it back. Not even Bangalore is hiring those kinds of developers.
Maybe it's time we did things the old fashioned way, and work our way up in the company, instead of expecting moviestar treatment straight out of college. You can't get a job as a senior software architect at age twenty? Try starting out as a SQA tester or tech support monkey. Yeah, those jobs suck, but you have to start somewhere. It's much easier to move up than to break in.
Huh? Software is not walnuts. No matter how much software I give away, I still have all that I started with. That's what I mean by you cannot damage software. It's infinitely copyable at zero cost. No matter how much you give away, you still have just as much. Someone fork off a proprietary branch from his copy, but your copy remains intact and unaltered.
You are no more damaged by a GPL violation than the BSA is damaged by an illegal download.
If a proprietary developer makes unauthorized use of the code and makes improvements without releasing them, this strategy is defeated.
You still haven't identified any actual damage. Having your nefarious schemes and plots foiled does not count as damage. I've got lots of schemes, plots and strategies of my own, but I don't haul people into court when I dont't get my way. That's what the BSA does, and we shouldn't stoop to their level.
I completely forgot Deep Space Nine and Voyager. I must have been asleep during my earlier post. Add those into the mix and you have a veritable ecumenical conference of religions in the Star Trek universe!
Star Trek (the original series) had a chapel. Vulcans have a religion, though it's more philosophic than theistic. The Klingons definitely have a religion. The belief in a god or gods was not unknown, even among "enlightened" humans.
Sorry to burst your fantasy, but the absence of a ship's chaplain does not mean everyone was an athiest.
As long as there's scarcity, there will be either money or barter. Money is so much more efficient than barter, that any civilized society will have it. Thus Star Trek without money is pure fantasy.
Free energy does not equate to a lack of energy. But even if it did, Star Trek did not have free energy.
Look at it this way. Imagine that instead of GPL code, you released it under the BSD or MIT license. Now someone has "misappropriated" the code, in exactly the same way they misappropriated the GPL code earlier. Where is the damage? Where is the harm?
Is the only damage in the GPL case merely a contract violation? A court may call that damage, but the real world does not. A breach of contract, in and of itself, is not the damage. Imagine a contract with me where you agreed to always wear green shoes. Then one day you got tired of it, and stopped wearing green shoes. How have I been damaged? How have I been harmed?
But ignore all that. The GPL is not a contract, and it even says so right inside. So where's the damage if there's no breach of contract possible? Where is the actual real world damage?
The answer is that there is none. The GPL isn't there to protect anything, it's there so you can impose control over your software.
The latter sounds like something my company helped work on. The medicine is encapsulated in microscopic beads, which are then injected into the bloodstream. You then image the region of interest with ultrasound. When you have it focused where you want it, hit the button, the frequency changes, bubbles shatter, and medicine is delivered precisely where you want it.
I too have wondered why the average geek gravitates towards the cheapest of trash. It's not just science fiction, but fantasy as well. Go to an RPG convention, and see the otherwise intelligent people drooling over the most inane fantasy novels.
There's nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong that's not also wrong with taking comfort in any other utopian fantasy. Star Trek's "we've evolved beyond money" is as unrealistic as any lemonade utopia.
Science fiction about cold fusion? Unacceptable! We don't have any solid evidence of cold fusion, no reliable data, no reproducability to the couple of claims. It is NOT current science. It might be tomorrow, but it isn't today.
Cold fusion is fantasy in the same way that FTL is. It's just more likely to come about, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
So where is that water going? Since we don't have any working fusion yet, it's not being destroyed. And I see no evidence that we have more clouds or higher ocean levels. So where is it going?
I think you're confusing watersheds with urban aquifers. The watershed for San Fransisco consists of several million acres of Sierra wilderness. On the other hand, the town of Alviso disappeared because it sucked its aquifer dry and sunk into San Fransisco bay. But other towns around the bay and at the same starting elevation, have not met the same fate, because their underground geologies are different.
Sack mead still has an ungodly amount of sugar in it, which is why you use citric (or tannic, tartaric, malic) acid to balance out the sweetness.
The user shouldn't have to figure out what the developer means by "Yes" or "No" in relation to the message in the box.
Call me an elitist, but I've no use for users who don't know what "yes" and "no" mean. Seriously. If my dialog text has bad grammar, then tell me and I'll fix it. If it's ambiguous, then tell me and I'll fix it. But slavish adherence to out-of-ass usability rules just so slashdot posters are happy is something I won't do.
I have written dialogs that used verbs instead of answers, when it makes sense. But I am not going to design my dialogs with the assumption that my users are idiots. I have too much respect for them to do that.
There's also another factor, and that's the coding itself. Most confirmation dialogs can be written as boolean functions, and even used within if statements. Yes==true ; no==false. Getting away from this perfect mapping is dangerous, because if we're asking a boolean true/false question, we should be getting a boolean true/false answer back.
When the buttons explicitly tell the user what the choice is going to do, it is easy for the user to pick out the correct choice without having to think about whether "Yes" means one thing or another.
So why not put the entire dialog text into a button? That's the result if you keep following your chain of logic. Because you're assuming that the user will never read the actual dialog text. Well if not, why put it there at all?
To reiterate, if my dialog text has bad grammar, is confusing, or does not lend itself to a simple boolean yes/no answer, then log a bug and I'll fix it.
Which is why we're glad you're not designing user interfaces. Seriously.
I would LOVE to see congress sequestered in a Motel 6 for the duration of the session, with no outside contact except the Domino's delivery guy.
One can only dream...
A properly designed dialog box does not force the user to think about what the choices will actually do.
Aaargh! We've dumbed down the UI to the level of the flatworm! Why don't we just have a dialog box that has a nice smiley face and single button labeled "okey dokey"?
If OSX is about not thinking, then keep it the hell away from me.
$300-400 isn't a real server. At best it makes a disposable print server or workgroup file server. For a real (as in profit generating) server you want reliability and efficiency, and you're not going to get that for $300-400.
Not sure what the difference is between a bribe and campaign donation
Well, if it's before the candiate achieves office, then it can't be a bribe. For other cases though, it's allowed because you don't want to be arresting elderly grandmothers for contributing $10 to a campaign. Seriously.
Campaign contributions are a free speech issue, and any movement to limit them is limiting free speech. Public financing is a scheme to guarantee offices to incumbents and their handpicked successors. We should be getting rid of welfare to corporations instead of adding welfare to politicians.
Since when has the senate followed the rules of the senate?
Sorry, but those images come from the .cx domain. I still haven't recovered from the last image I saw at the .cx domain. You can't fool me twice.
You basically have to read the entire alert to even know what's being asked...
Pardon me for being dense, but what the fsck is wrong with that? Let me guess, the next Apple interface won't even have text, and dialog messages will consist of pantomime quicktime movies...
If you've used Microsoft Word then you've got a head start on knowing Internet Explorer, Notepad, and Calc.exe.
How is this any different from KDE or GNOME? If I've used KWord, for example, I've got a head start on knowing Konqueror, KWrite and kcalc.
A number of these walltops, when connected, can host a slideshow that can show digitized images.
You submitters need to start learning how to summarize the articles you submit. Reading the above description, I'm completely unimpressed. I don't need a wall of laptops to show digitized images. My current desktop can handle that task just peachy, thank you.
The decline in software jobs is merely a balance for the glut of programmers in the dot.boom. Back in 2000 you could get a $70k job as a junior college dropout with only an intro class to Java under your belt. What the market is doing now is shedding that excess fat and refusing to hire it back. Not even Bangalore is hiring those kinds of developers.
Maybe it's time we did things the old fashioned way, and work our way up in the company, instead of expecting moviestar treatment straight out of college. You can't get a job as a senior software architect at age twenty? Try starting out as a SQA tester or tech support monkey. Yeah, those jobs suck, but you have to start somewhere. It's much easier to move up than to break in.
Huh? Software is not walnuts. No matter how much software I give away, I still have all that I started with. That's what I mean by you cannot damage software. It's infinitely copyable at zero cost. No matter how much you give away, you still have just as much. Someone fork off a proprietary branch from his copy, but your copy remains intact and unaltered.
You are no more damaged by a GPL violation than the BSA is damaged by an illegal download.
If a proprietary developer makes unauthorized use of the code and makes improvements without releasing them, this strategy is defeated.
You still haven't identified any actual damage. Having your nefarious schemes and plots foiled does not count as damage. I've got lots of schemes, plots and strategies of my own, but I don't haul people into court when I dont't get my way. That's what the BSA does, and we shouldn't stoop to their level.
I completely forgot Deep Space Nine and Voyager. I must have been asleep during my earlier post. Add those into the mix and you have a veritable ecumenical conference of religions in the Star Trek universe!
Star Trek (the original series) had a chapel. Vulcans have a religion, though it's more philosophic than theistic. The Klingons definitely have a religion. The belief in a god or gods was not unknown, even among "enlightened" humans.
Sorry to burst your fantasy, but the absence of a ship's chaplain does not mean everyone was an athiest.
As long as there's scarcity, there will be either money or barter. Money is so much more efficient than barter, that any civilized society will have it. Thus Star Trek without money is pure fantasy.
Free energy does not equate to a lack of energy. But even if it did, Star Trek did not have free energy.
Look at it this way. Imagine that instead of GPL code, you released it under the BSD or MIT license. Now someone has "misappropriated" the code, in exactly the same way they misappropriated the GPL code earlier. Where is the damage? Where is the harm?
Is the only damage in the GPL case merely a contract violation? A court may call that damage, but the real world does not. A breach of contract, in and of itself, is not the damage. Imagine a contract with me where you agreed to always wear green shoes. Then one day you got tired of it, and stopped wearing green shoes. How have I been damaged? How have I been harmed?
But ignore all that. The GPL is not a contract, and it even says so right inside. So where's the damage if there's no breach of contract possible? Where is the actual real world damage?
The answer is that there is none. The GPL isn't there to protect anything, it's there so you can impose control over your software.
The latter sounds like something my company helped work on. The medicine is encapsulated in microscopic beads, which are then injected into the bloodstream. You then image the region of interest with ultrasound. When you have it focused where you want it, hit the button, the frequency changes, bubbles shatter, and medicine is delivered precisely where you want it.
No religion.
I don't think you have been watching the same Star Trek I have.
I too have wondered why the average geek gravitates towards the cheapest of trash. It's not just science fiction, but fantasy as well. Go to an RPG convention, and see the otherwise intelligent people drooling over the most inane fantasy novels.
There's nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong that's not also wrong with taking comfort in any other utopian fantasy. Star Trek's "we've evolved beyond money" is as unrealistic as any lemonade utopia.
Science fiction about cold fusion? Unacceptable! We don't have any solid evidence of cold fusion, no reliable data, no reproducability to the couple of claims. It is NOT current science. It might be tomorrow, but it isn't today.
Cold fusion is fantasy in the same way that FTL is. It's just more likely to come about, that's all.