Common sense is not taught in schools. It is taught by parents. But it's not taught directly, like a classroom curricula, it's taught through:
A) Accepting responsibility to teach your children about life. Too many parents expect schools to do this for them. If all you do with your child is drop them off at school in the morning, pick them up afterwards, and then ignore them the rest of the day, you're run a great risk of your child not learning sufficient common sense.
B) Don't be overprotective of your child. I don't know it came from, but this idea that children should be protected from life is terribly wrong. Children who never get hurt never learn that there are things in this world that can hurt them.
Amazingly, there are parents who ignore their children at the same time they're overly protective of them.
C) Teaching your child to accept responsibility for his own actions. Why should your child assume that actions have consequences if his own actions never have consequences?
Those are the three things that teach children common sense. It's simple. Most of us had parents who taught us common sense. Unfortunately, a significant number of people in our society did not.
You really don't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, do you? The parent is talking about illegal immigration, and you respond about legal immigration.
People cannot discuss things rationally with you when you resort to non sequiturs.
Just because I have an open door policy does not mean you can sneak in the bedroom window at midnight.
I would like to see more immigration. I would let anyone in who has a job or is attending school, or even just visiting for two weeks. But they need to come here through the gates and with proper stamps on their passports. I guess that makes me a raving rightwing reactionary.
First, only experts know it's there. Second, the interface itself is a laundry list of name/value pairs. Are these names meaningful to the user? NO! They were named by developers, the very SAME people we're told who shouldn't be put in charge of user interfaces. It's the GUI equivalent of an uncommented text configuration file.
That's the problem with GNOME and FF/TB: they either treat you like an idiot who can't even tie his own shows without falling down, or they expect you to be such an expert that you know the meaning of several hundred poorly named undocumented settings. There is no in-between user allowed!
While some might disagree with his opinions, he lays out the case for non-neutrality in an informed and informative manner.
What the hell does his informed and informative manner have to do with anything? He doesn't agree with me! Therefore I must shout so loud that no one can hear him!
I tried turning off images in Thunderbird this morning. It's email, it doesn't need images. If I want to see the picture someone sent me, I'll click on it.
But I couldn't do it. I can't find the option to turn it off. Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. Maybe there's a hidden option I can type in to turn it off. I don't know. What I do know is that I'm not going to waste my time searching online for it!
I'm really pissed that Thunderbird thinks I'm so stupid I can't handle a "don't load images" option. This isn't good interface design, it's arrogant elitism. If you don't want to clutter the inteface with lesser used options, then put a damned "advanced" button in the dialog! Don't REMOVE that functionality just because you think it's too advanced for your Aunt Tillie!
The reason there is a higher "footprint" for a desktop than for a window manager, is that a desktop does a LOT more stuff. It's not just a bunch of apps with a similar look and feel. It's not even just a bunch of apps sharing a common framework. Instead, it's a bunch of apps that integrate and interoperate with each other to a high degree.
In order to do this you need a certain amount of overhead. You need various daemons and utilities running in the background (dbus, kded, etc). You need internal infrastructure to support a component model (kparts). You also need support drag-and-drop and mime types, application settings, widget and font palettes, file watching, common dialogs, etc.
KDE is more desktop oriented than any other desktop. Much more so than WinXP or Mac OSX. To a lot of people this is wonderful. But if all you want is an application launcher and something to slap borders around your windows, then stick with a window manager.
Nonsense! GNOME may certainly be more ideological, but that does not mean they are ideologically better. I will assert that the optimistic pragmatism of KDE is far superior to the ranting idealism of GNOME.
GNOME is the desktop that tells you what to believe. It tells you want to believe about programming languages, software licensing, configuration dialogs, application names, etc. All to the way down to the level of telling you what to believe about the order of buttons on dialogs. These aren't mere technical policies to promote project coherency, but actual belief systems.
Microsoft is the ultimate evil. They are a heartless monopoly that we are powerless against. Even the federal government quakes before their might. We have no choice to do but what Steve Ballmers tells us!
It is not true that you can get a Windows refund. Otherwise I'll have to find a different reason for living besides hating Microsoft...
Microsoft isn't the only one with OEM bundle deals. Before the "monopoly", I remember being in a store and seeing a choice between a i386 with Windows and a i386 with DRDOS/GeoWorks.
My point still stands. Acts that are illegal for a monopoly can be perfectly legal, ethical and moral for a non-monopoly. It was perfectly legitmate for non-monopoly Microsoft to bundle Windows with OEM systems.
Microsoft's unforgivable sin was being successful. It's a lesson all aspiring companies should take to heart.
Putting an httpd configuration page on a network device isn't that terrible. But making it the ONLY way to configure it, is still asinine. Even worse are the IE-only routers.
But oh well. Finding a laptop that even has a serial port these days is nigh impossible. The make-everything-a-webapp assholes have won, damn them!
Things that are illegal for a monopoly are perfectly legit for a non-monopoly. It's a crazy law, but that's how it works. Microsoft broke no federal laws to *gain* their monopoly.
And you don't need an ethernet cable (or sucking up to IT to get a hole through the firewall). All you need to do is plugin a serial cable and you're done. Need to do a remote connection? Ask the user to turn on the modem, or ssh in.
It's not about being the 21st century, it's about not being stupid. Slapping a web server on an embedded system just so you can interface to them is beyond asinine.
It still doesn't change the fact that you frequently run across webapps that require a specific brand/version of Java. One app needs Java 1.5, so you go install it. Another needs Java 1.4 (and refuses to even let you see the login page until you downgrade). The branding isn't as critical anymore, but as recently as last summer I was using a webapp that refused to cooperate with any Sun Java.
Out here in the real world, 1997 hasn't gone away.
Seriously though, that's a single incident. Big deal.
Tell that to the three people who died, and the two dozen more that were injured. Only a single incident spread over the course of years. No big deal. There's no real risk.
So in other words, since no president since Washington argued for an absolutist interpretation of the constitution, only the current president should be excoriated for not using an absolutist interpretation of the constitution.
It's nice to see everyone's outrage over Bush(II), but where the fsck where they during the Clinton, Bush(I), Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc, etc. The near complete silence from the consitutional absolutists during prior administrations makes me extremely suspicious that this current clamour is entirely partisan.
p.s. Speaking of consistancy, do you also believe that the second ammendment should be interpreted absolutely? That all people should have the right to own tanks, howitzers and nukes?
There are many exceptions to the absolute need for warrants. Exigent circumstances is one of them. For example, a cop notices bloodstains on your hands after he stops you for a routine traffic check. He then proceeds to search your car without a warrant, discovering a dead body in the trunk.
Before you explode in righteous anger, or start screaming out bits of lung, go read what Bush said.
This is not the totalitarian act so many of you are making it out to be. It is certainly not the deathknell of Western civilization. Here is what he said: "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances." According to the White House spokesperson, "In certain circumstances such as with the proverbial 'ticking bomb' the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches."
Main Entry: exigent
Pronunciation: 'ek-s&-j&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin exigent-, exigens, present participle of exigere to demand -- more at EXACT
1 : requiring immediate aid or action
The post office has a first class letter than is ticking. Bush is claiming that the letter can be opened or x-rayed in that situation. And for that situation, I agree with him. Let's get a little fuzzier. What if there is information that a particular piece of mail contains insructions to a terrorist cell to trigger an attack? If that information was reliable, I would also agree that it's an exigent circumstance. On the other hand, opening a letter written by a known mobster does not count. It's not an exigent circumstance. In that situation a warrant needs to be issued.
While I do wish Bush had stated a narrower limit to executive power than "exigent circumstances", it's still sufficiently narrow that we should be able to discuss this calmy and rationally, without the extreme excoriation that so many in the press are displaying.
Re:Hammer, Feather, Freefall on the Moon: Revisite
on
5 Strangest Materials
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I can't tell if your post is hyperbole or not.
This is Slashdot. He was probably being completely serious.
Except that communism doesn't work. If you try you just end up with a massive totalitarian state that cannot wither away. Far far better to stop trying to make other people jump through your ideological hoops, and just let volunteerism work. Sure, you might end up with one person having two cows while another has only one, but it beats the pants off of gulags and killing fields.
Slashdot Mirror
Common sense is not taught in schools. It is taught by parents. But it's not taught directly, like a classroom curricula, it's taught through:
A) Accepting responsibility to teach your children about life. Too many parents expect schools to do this for them. If all you do with your child is drop them off at school in the morning, pick them up afterwards, and then ignore them the rest of the day, you're run a great risk of your child not learning sufficient common sense.
B) Don't be overprotective of your child. I don't know it came from, but this idea that children should be protected from life is terribly wrong. Children who never get hurt never learn that there are things in this world that can hurt them.
Amazingly, there are parents who ignore their children at the same time they're overly protective of them.
C) Teaching your child to accept responsibility for his own actions. Why should your child assume that actions have consequences if his own actions never have consequences?
Those are the three things that teach children common sense. It's simple. Most of us had parents who taught us common sense. Unfortunately, a significant number of people in our society did not.
You really don't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, do you? The parent is talking about illegal immigration, and you respond about legal immigration.
People cannot discuss things rationally with you when you resort to non sequiturs.
Just because I have an open door policy does not mean you can sneak in the bedroom window at midnight.
I would like to see more immigration. I would let anyone in who has a job or is attending school, or even just visiting for two weeks. But they need to come here through the gates and with proper stamps on their passports. I guess that makes me a raving rightwing reactionary.
about:config is a HORRIBLE user interface!
First, only experts know it's there. Second, the interface itself is a laundry list of name/value pairs. Are these names meaningful to the user? NO! They were named by developers, the very SAME people we're told who shouldn't be put in charge of user interfaces. It's the GUI equivalent of an uncommented text configuration file.
That's the problem with GNOME and FF/TB: they either treat you like an idiot who can't even tie his own shows without falling down, or they expect you to be such an expert that you know the meaning of several hundred poorly named undocumented settings. There is no in-between user allowed!
This isn't usability, it's a freaking insult!
While some might disagree with his opinions, he lays out the case for non-neutrality in an informed and informative manner.
What the hell does his informed and informative manner have to do with anything? He doesn't agree with me! Therefore I must shout so loud that no one can hear him!
That is the Slashdot Way...
But if I did have to do it, you've shown how easy it is to do
Now it's YOU who is being sarcastic!
I tried turning off images in Thunderbird this morning. It's email, it doesn't need images. If I want to see the picture someone sent me, I'll click on it.
But I couldn't do it. I can't find the option to turn it off. Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. Maybe there's a hidden option I can type in to turn it off. I don't know. What I do know is that I'm not going to waste my time searching online for it!
I'm really pissed that Thunderbird thinks I'm so stupid I can't handle a "don't load images" option. This isn't good interface design, it's arrogant elitism. If you don't want to clutter the inteface with lesser used options, then put a damned "advanced" button in the dialog! Don't REMOVE that functionality just because you think it's too advanced for your Aunt Tillie!
The reason there is a higher "footprint" for a desktop than for a window manager, is that a desktop does a LOT more stuff. It's not just a bunch of apps with a similar look and feel. It's not even just a bunch of apps sharing a common framework. Instead, it's a bunch of apps that integrate and interoperate with each other to a high degree.
In order to do this you need a certain amount of overhead. You need various daemons and utilities running in the background (dbus, kded, etc). You need internal infrastructure to support a component model (kparts). You also need support drag-and-drop and mime types, application settings, widget and font palettes, file watching, common dialogs, etc.
KDE is more desktop oriented than any other desktop. Much more so than WinXP or Mac OSX. To a lot of people this is wonderful. But if all you want is an application launcher and something to slap borders around your windows, then stick with a window manager.
Ideoligally, Gnome may be better.
Nonsense! GNOME may certainly be more ideological, but that does not mean they are ideologically better. I will assert that the optimistic pragmatism of KDE is far superior to the ranting idealism of GNOME.
GNOME is the desktop that tells you what to believe. It tells you want to believe about programming languages, software licensing, configuration dialogs, application names, etc. All to the way down to the level of telling you what to believe about the order of buttons on dialogs. These aren't mere technical policies to promote project coherency, but actual belief systems.
It's not true! It's not true!
Microsoft is the ultimate evil. They are a heartless monopoly that we are powerless against. Even the federal government quakes before their might. We have no choice to do but what Steve Ballmers tells us!
It is not true that you can get a Windows refund. Otherwise I'll have to find a different reason for living besides hating Microsoft...
Microsoft isn't the only one with OEM bundle deals. Before the "monopoly", I remember being in a store and seeing a choice between a i386 with Windows and a i386 with DRDOS/GeoWorks.
My point still stands. Acts that are illegal for a monopoly can be perfectly legal, ethical and moral for a non-monopoly. It was perfectly legitmate for non-monopoly Microsoft to bundle Windows with OEM systems.
Microsoft's unforgivable sin was being successful. It's a lesson all aspiring companies should take to heart.
Putting an httpd configuration page on a network device isn't that terrible. But making it the ONLY way to configure it, is still asinine. Even worse are the IE-only routers.
But oh well. Finding a laptop that even has a serial port these days is nigh impossible. The make-everything-a-webapp assholes have won, damn them!
Things that are illegal for a monopoly are perfectly legit for a non-monopoly. It's a crazy law, but that's how it works. Microsoft broke no federal laws to *gain* their monopoly.
And you don't need an ethernet cable (or sucking up to IT to get a hole through the firewall). All you need to do is plugin a serial cable and you're done. Need to do a remote connection? Ask the user to turn on the modem, or ssh in.
It's not about being the 21st century, it's about not being stupid. Slapping a web server on an embedded system just so you can interface to them is beyond asinine.
It still doesn't change the fact that you frequently run across webapps that require a specific brand/version of Java. One app needs Java 1.5, so you go install it. Another needs Java 1.4 (and refuses to even let you see the login page until you downgrade). The branding isn't as critical anymore, but as recently as last summer I was using a webapp that refused to cooperate with any Sun Java.
Out here in the real world, 1997 hasn't gone away.
Seriously though, that's a single incident. Big deal.
Tell that to the three people who died, and the two dozen more that were injured. Only a single incident spread over the course of years. No big deal. There's no real risk.
"Unibomber" is a common mispelling. University bomber, instead of University and airline bomber.
Thanks for letting me know that you only want an absolutist interpretation for some, and not all, ammendments.
So in other words, since no president since Washington argued for an absolutist interpretation of the constitution, only the current president should be excoriated for not using an absolutist interpretation of the constitution.
It's nice to see everyone's outrage over Bush(II), but where the fsck where they during the Clinton, Bush(I), Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc, etc. The near complete silence from the consitutional absolutists during prior administrations makes me extremely suspicious that this current clamour is entirely partisan.
p.s. Speaking of consistancy, do you also believe that the second ammendment should be interpreted absolutely? That all people should have the right to own tanks, howitzers and nukes?
No, he's the guy who killed people.
I'm not too sure we have some huge problem with bombs being sent in the mail.
Not a huge problem, but that doesn't mean it's non-existant. Remember the Unibomber?
There are many exceptions to the absolute need for warrants. Exigent circumstances is one of them. For example, a cop notices bloodstains on your hands after he stops you for a routine traffic check. He then proceeds to search your car without a warrant, discovering a dead body in the trunk.
This is not the totalitarian act so many of you are making it out to be. It is certainly not the deathknell of Western civilization. Here is what he said: "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent
The post office has a first class letter than is ticking. Bush is claiming that the letter can be opened or x-rayed in that situation. And for that situation, I agree with him. Let's get a little fuzzier. What if there is information that a particular piece of mail contains insructions to a terrorist cell to trigger an attack? If that information was reliable, I would also agree that it's an exigent circumstance. On the other hand, opening a letter written by a known mobster does not count. It's not an exigent circumstance. In that situation a warrant needs to be issued.
While I do wish Bush had stated a narrower limit to executive power than "exigent circumstances", it's still sufficiently narrow that we should be able to discuss this calmy and rationally, without the extreme excoriation that so many in the press are displaying.
I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I can't tell if your post is hyperbole or not.
This is Slashdot. He was probably being completely serious.
Except that communism doesn't work. If you try you just end up with a massive totalitarian state that cannot wither away. Far far better to stop trying to make other people jump through your ideological hoops, and just let volunteerism work. Sure, you might end up with one person having two cows while another has only one, but it beats the pants off of gulags and killing fields.