Don't you think that it's a *bit* more likely that the document is a fake.
Possibly, but does it matter? The US has been assassinating leaders, overthrowing governments and generally mucking around repeatedly in another countries throughout the last century.
Besides, please explain how non-western (what ? commie ? islamist ?...) are better in the morality department
How is that relevant? Is the measure of man his deeds and actions, or what he professes to believe in?
The current iranian administration killed 500.000 kids (well, they sent them straight into Saddam's bullets after giving them a carton "key to heaven" - this is NOT a joke). North Korea... well does anything really need to be said ?
Iraq and Iran were at war for years. Sending "kids" to fight is what countries to do when they're fighting a war. When the US sent kids to Vietnam, no patriotic American would have considered using such inflammatory contructs as "killing our kids" or "sending them into Viet Cong bullets". If you're trying to leverage the tired argument that Sadaam Hussein was a Really Bad Man because of what he did in the 1980s, then I'd suggest you look into what your government was doing at the time. Better yet, ask Donald Rumsfeld. He was there, playing an active role helping Sadaam protect Americans from the Iranians.
Unfortunately western governments are the best governments there are. They're VERY far from perfect. However they beat the crap out of every other "style" of government.
That's relevant only insofar as it makes you feel good about your country. Past that, I'd offer the suggestion that if you want to be informed and feel good at the same time, you'll ponder the concept that having a "better" form of government confers no special privilege or right to behave as "lesser" forms of government. Put another way, acting like an asshole makes you an asshole. And if you're an asshole or repeatedly behave like one, folks standing around tend to take notice and remember, and then go on to teach their kids what they learned.
Does this mean you can't win wars by giving the enemy a lollipop?
No, but if the overthrow of the popularly elected democratic government in Iran way back when is any indication, it does suggest that you can avoid wars by staying out of other people's business. Put another way, getting out of the habit of pissing people off might get you your own lollipop.
I mean, where are the true believers now? Does anyone seriously think that western governments have any kind of moral credibility?
An insightful comment if ever I read one.
Also worth pointing out this gives lie to the "They hate us for our freedom" rubbish repeatedly heard from our leaders when conflicts and violence occur in unfamiliar parts of the world. The really sad thing is that any student of American history could say this is a non-story.
Yeah, can you imagine the nightmarish Orwelian scenario where citizens wouldn't know how the FCC classified their broadband access in their area?
It's entirely possible that knowing the classification may not help, any more than "Sucks" can be considered an improvement over "Really Sucks", or even "Holy Batman This Really Sucks!".
Here is how to get more or less the old behavior. Go to about:config and set browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped to true and browser.urlbar.richResults to false. Then restart.
Nifty. But allow me to interject my favourite whine:
Why isn't this shit documented and distributed?
And no, the Help menu doesn't count, as it's as dumbed down and useless as anything provided by Microsoft, nor is bouncing around the web looking for "knowledgebase" articles and editable wikis (hello Mozillazine), when a frigging manpage or two would have sufficed.
From my experience, not driving 75 in a 65 zone elicits plenty of rage.
There was an incident recently in or near LA where one driver got so upset he repeatedly rammed the car that he believed was causing him grief. Both cars were banged up so badly that you'd think it was from a scene in movie. IIRC, he was an educated professional (the other driver was woman), but that didn't prevent him from being charged with multiple felonies.
My own preference, and possibly the most sensible approach for dealing with excitable drivers, is simply to get out of their way. The exception, at least for me, is when I'm driving down my own street or somewhere similar where the speed limit is 25 and there's lots of kids and pedestrians. Ironically, it's only the soccer moms and teenagers that seem to have a problem with that.
Part of the Chinese culture? That little tradition used to be polite behaviour in the west too.
Not to the extent it is elsewhere.
A friend of mine told me a funny story years ago of his parents when they first arrived in the US. His mother received an invitation from the neighbours for a housewarming dinner. When she arrived, the hostess came up to her and suggested she help herself from the buffet. The conversation proceeded along the following lines:
"No, thank you."
"You really must."
"I'm sorry, but I really shouldn't."
"I insist."
"Thank you for your hospitality, but I really can't."
"Ok. Suit yourself, then."
When his mother returned home in tears, her husband asked her what had happened. She said she had never felt so insulted, and didn't eat a thing. When he asked why she didn't eat anything, she replied, "The hostess didn't insist the third time!"
Funny thing is, I get a lot more paper spam than email spam. From where I stand, paper spam is a worse problem.
Where you stand (in the simplest scenario possible) is at the other end of a connection to a server deluged with spam day in and day out, and where the email admin is doing his damnedest to ensure you don't get any of it, while making sure that your mail gets to you without being swallowed up by the mess. And if he's having any success, you won't be asked to pull your head out of your ass to realise that just because it's sunny where you are, it might be raining somewhere nearby.
While I agree with your sentiments, I'm afraid you'll have to make your case to everyone from economists to business leaders to the folks in government to those working in various thinktanks to the punditocracy. Their thinking goes along the following lines:
Because the US economy is a now a service economy (the manufacturing base having long since migrated to places like China), intellectual property is our sole asset. Ergo, the protection of intellectual property rights deserves not only the highest priority, but also is key to the economic growth.
Nothwithstanding Slashdot's favourite issues du jour (including, but not limited to the abusive behaviour of the entertainment industries, the widely held but erroneous perception that software is sold in shrinkwrapped boxes only, the urgent need for patent reform, and the erosion of consumer rights), those advocating increased IP protection, I'm afraid, do have a valid argument. The problem is that to the extent their argument is valid, the measures taken typical range from the ridiculous to the absurd.
Especially when Lotus Notes already does all those things... and does them better!
Didn't you hear? The White House IT people testified before a Senate subcommittee that Notes was obsolete technology. And everyone nodded in approval.
Oddly enough, it was these same people that couldn't determine whether any mail was missing, and were having a heck of a time trying to restore Exchange backups, though to their benefit, they did acknowledge that they were investigating third-party solutions.
Sending mails with a specific line width sucks if my display is smaller or wider then what the sender think is the right linesize.
Bad or innappropriate line lengths, as well as formatting in general, are problems faced by just about everyone. Mobile users are unique, but that's not to say the rest of us aren't inconvenienced for similar reasons.
I read volumes of email in an 80 character terminal. If I need to see code (something that should never be wrapped), I expand my screen. I sure as hell don't need the entire email adjusting so I get paragraphs as wide as my screen.
There's lots of reason why line length is traditionally set at around 72 characters. Unless, of course, you're one of those that believe emails are written for your benefit, and not the benefit of the reader.
What If I am on a mobile device which can only show 60 chars on a line. If you email have a newline after 80 chars, it will not look good.
Mobile devices are problematic, both for the mobile user, and for everyone forced to communicate with someone using a mobile device. The format-flowed approach works, of course (unless you need to clean up someone's mess to read something), but I wouldn't suggest using a mobile device to send or receive mail from mailing lists unless you want problems on both ends.
Well, the teardrop shape is less space efficient than a box, and most vehicles don't go fast enough often enough to make use of quality aerodynamics.
Perhaps, but I doubt any of the car makers trying to meet CAFE standards, or struggling to appeal to new car buyers by boosting the mileage on any of their models up a few points, are going to agree.
There's a reason why most cars on the road today all look the same. And it ain't because they were all designed by the same guy.
Is a Slashdot post the place for a blow by blow account of the reasons for Notepad++ being good?
Maybe I should rephrase.
Is a post offering a one-liner recommendation of any value?
My answer would be "Yes, if I wanted a feel-good reinforcement of an identical personal choice, or if I knew and understood you or your work habits fairly well to put your choice in some meaningful context. But I don't on both counts. So no."
I could go on for ages, I've become quite a fan.
I'm sure you could. And I'm sure you'd agree I or anyone else could go on for ages about why they believe your choice is a bad one, innapropriate for them, or why their choices are better. Come to think of it, that's Slashdot. Fun reading if you can wade through all the redundant "Me too" or "Here's mine", but typically of little value, save for posts by those who actually make the case for something in adequate detail, offer some insight, or otherwise have something new to say (a tough thing when the subject is text editors and programming tools).
Put another way, the fact that I consider Notepad++ silly doesn't mean that for you, silly works. I'd just prefer people refrain from one-liner recommendations because they clutter up everyone's screen, or invite people like me writing long-assed posts justifying minor points of contention. Hell, a few more "Notepad++ is the bomb" and people might be inclined to rush out and download it.
Do you want them to face the disappointment of yet another program they probably won't use, that their friends might laugh, or otherwise suffer the disappointment of learning that their editor is not The One True Editor? And what about email? How are they going to send email? I mean, won't somebody think of the kids?
Actually I find that I use Notepad++ these days, it does enough of what Emacs does...
Bah. What good is an editor that doesn't include email, usenet, telnet and ftp functions?
Seriously, though, I don't doubt your sincerity, but whenever I read something along the lines of "It works great!", I wonder why it is the endorsement never includes its limitations, or what should be a requisite qualifier of "It works, but only for the limited manner in which I need it to work."
I never realized that I was psychic, but how could Detroit not have seen this coming?... Almost as if the 1970s never happened.
For folks that weren't there in the 70s, there were no SUVs, but there were plenty of stationwagons and similarly absurd mostrosities. The oil ran short, the car industry tanked ("We didn't see it coming!"), people suffered, and those seeking someone to blame took turns between pointing to Jimmy Carter and dark-skinned foreigners with strange customs.
Needless to say, the Japanese saw the opportunity and took it. After a few years, we started pointed our fingers at them ("The Japs are going to rule the world!"), but once the idea of owning a Honda or Toyota became less exotic, and they started building plants here to keep up with the demand, we had no choice but to get over our misgivings.
I hope Ford and GM go bankrupt for their shortsightedness.
I remember a comment Chrysler's Lee Iacoca made in the 90s when looking back at his company's ill-fated K-cars (cars designed to compete head-on with the Japanese using techniques that were going to revolutionise car building in the United States), "Yeah, we did build a lot of shitty cars in the 80s." They built a lot shitty cars in the 90s, but he was no longer around to be asked about it.
Chrysler's gone, and Ford and GM may deserve to go as well, despite that they do make better quality vehicles than they used to. The problem is that a large part of the economy depends on the car industry, and an ever larger share of certain local economies depend on it. If either goes under, the ordinary person will suffer. Not that they aren't already.
Personally, I view this as a collective if not national embarassment. Everyone deserves part of the blame just like everyone pays part of the price. Asking the question of why are we doing it to ourselves yet again somehow seems redundant.
A well seasoned cast iron implement also has the advantage of being relatively non-stick...
Well-seasoned cast iron also has other advantages other than being non-stick (not relatively, but most definitely) that include more even and higher temperatures (for superiour browning), requiring no soap and water to clean, and being oven-safe (oven-friendly, actually) so you can cook using using any method or methods you choose.
Then again, cast iron went out of fashion years ago when women started working in professional kitchens and found them too heavy for regular use, and the introduction of electric stoves (which don't generate a high enough heat) probably didn't help matters. It's a shame, really, and any westerner who's been in a Chinese kitchen and seen a wok seasoned over 20 years put to regular demanding use would probably agree.
A person who remembers a lot doesn't necessarily have the ability to put concepts together and form new ones.
Oddly enough, without the ability to memorise a bunch of boring facts, it's impossible to derive a concept. Or be able to evaluate the validity of the concepts.
I don't care whether it's rote memorisation of multiplication tables by grade schoolers, memorisation of names and dates for high schoolers studying history (or whatever they call it today), or a shitload of Latin by those studying some of the sciences, without being able to do the work, and actually doing it, you can't possibly progress to understanding anything.
For most, I guess, that's too hard, especially when Google not only provides such a convenient excuse, but also proxies your own knowledge so nothing is ever required or expected of you.
So either the USA government is doing a much better job of keeping even the fact that phones are tapped at all hidden from public scrutiny, or it really is much, much worse here (in this regard, at least).
Much worse only begins to describe it. The Netherlands have more than 10x the number of terrorists we do.
This is why I walk my dog a different route each day. I don't even know what route we will take until we are back. It adds a little bit of surprise and a little bit of uncertainty into an otherwise very uniform and repetitive existence.
LOL. You do know that dogs are creatures of habit? I have a little walk in my backyard made of staggered stepping stones. Really hard to walk on, but it's there so I have someplace to stand when I'm watering the lawn by hand and can get back to the house without getting my feet too wet when I'm done. The funny thing is most all of the year, I never use the walk, but when I'm outside playing fetch with the dog, he catches the ball and uses the walk to come back. Every... single... time.
If you're taking different routes on a daily basis, my guess is you have a happy, but neurotic dog.
Not that any of this has much to do with article. My dog's never been to Europe, doesn't have a cellphone, or even a Slashdot account, but if he did, I'm sure he'd have something interesting to say.
Yes and no. For someone buying a laptop and then making regular use of this technology, it's absurd, or at least little more than a toy when viwed from a security perspective. On the other, we all seem to be heading to a future where computers are, or least behave, in a more personal manner, so in that sense, this technology is, for lack of a better word, a really cool idea.
Then, consider that the world around around us is demanding increased security and is thus subject to increased surveillance and control. That's true from the CCTV cameras monitored by law enforcement, to the folks at your local DMV or voting precinct trying to prevent fraud, to the liquor store owner checking his store while he's at home. It's a fair assumption that with increasing interest in these technologies, we'll see a corresponding increases in research and development, which will, in the end, lead to widespread usage of whatever technology wins out, whether that's iris scans, fingerprints. forearm barcode tatoos, DNA, faces, or a combination of any of the above. If you took a vote on which approach people want, I doubt anyone would say "It's more passwords and PINs for me!".
If it becomes possible to replace every lock and key with some sort of recognition software, would you complain, or tout all the benefits? Or if you could save tax dollars by replacing local security on the streets and Home Depots everywhere with similar software, would you view that a good or bad idea?
Let's face it, the above scenarios aren't very likely, at least in the short term. We're still working on voice recognition. For now, however, it doesn't mean we can't have fun playing with Toshiba laptops.
I've noticed that theres a small contingent of very nationalistic Chinese Slashdot users who get butthurt whenever anyone says anything remotely negative about the Chinese government.
Not just Slashot users, but Chinese in general. I watched a news program or documentary recently that covered the subject, and it turns out the Chinese, the young and college educated particularly, exhibit the same reaction.
It turns out that, and I'm generalising here, the Chinese, if they don't "like it that way". have few objections to strong government control. For a westerner that might be hard to fathom, but I think it's unfair to dismiss their preferences as absurd or characterise them as the result of some sort of brainwashing.
What shouldn't be hard to fathom is that for someone who's Chinese, China is their country. Last I checked, national pride is a universal phenomenon, and treading on other's sense of identity or pride, however enlightened or well-intentioned, is always bad form and inevitably leads to conflict.
Given this, your question about the "degree of might", that degree gets pushed to 100%
Sorry, but I disagree. The study is absurd and illogical. You can do a similar study any day of the week by taking a group of convicted rapists and asking them whether they liked watching porn, and whether they "used it" (to the extent that construct is meaningful) before going out to the bars, to the titty clubs or to get juiced up before attacking some woman in a parking lot.
The results are the same. And prove nothing.
Hell, next we'll be hearing from someone citing a study associating alcohol usage with wife battery as evidence that alcohol should be made illegal. Or for a more refined line of reasoning, that alcohol usage in any form should be made illegal because it encourages sexual boldness on the part of the drinker, and a corrupting influence on the judgment and reasoning of the partner. True, but so fucking what?
Here's a tip: everybody enjoys sexually stimulating material. That includes rapists, murderers, and shoplifers as it does perfectly ordinary people. What escapes those who advocate the association equals causation line of reasoning is that those groups really have nothing in common, and will continue to have nothing in common irrespective of how stimulated they get. Similarly ignored is the irony of the more porn you watch, the less likely your are to engage in any interpersonal acts.
Seeking to prove some element of causation is a dubious effort that offers insignificant results as it silently and irresponsibily ignore the fact that almost all real abuse happens in the home or by a relative. Even worse, the hysteria it promotes causes damage to society at large and the well-meaning, well-intentioned advocacy groups are a disservice to their own cause.
No private company should be so entrenched in society that it would be impossible to survive without the service they provide.
An insightful comment if ever I read one, but I'm afraid you're a few generations late. As a society we gave up believing in government, institutions of power or authority, religeon, civic responsibility and most all notions of tradition, and adopted instead a belief in individuality and self-fullfilment. That doesn't leave us with much, does it?
If the current trend continues and free market idealogues get to rule the day, we should expect to have everything from infrastructure to institutions ruled and run entirely by corporations (to the extent they don't already), and we'll all be working for Taco Bell or for The Brawndo Corporation.
The situation can also be viewed political terms. A good portion of the electorate really does believe that government is evil, that government can't possibly do anything as efficiently or as cheaply as business, and that taxes infringe on their God given rights, but they're only too happy to let the Walmarts of the world take over provided they can maintain the illusion they've kept a few extra dollars in their own pockets.
The people who complain about undue corporate influence on government probably don't notice that they've succumbed to those same influences in their own lives, but they might notice when there's nothing left to sell off, somebody else holds all the cards and those free-market choices they've been promised come up short.
Google, I think, is doing what any business does, and that's fulfulling an unmet need and making or trying to make a profit in doing so. The question is why we're not doing it ourselves?
How does producing images that look like child porn without actually abusing children encourage crimes against children?
It doesn't, in the same way that producing images that look like Natalie Portman encourages crimes against Natalie Portman.
But that's not the point, is it? The fear underlying all this legislation is that someone "might" want to view such images, and "might" want to do something after viewing them. Given the current hysteria, any degree of "might" (in any context) is considered unacceptable. That's where the thinking starts and stops.
Forget the logic, or that most all real abuse happens in the home or by a close relative, or that child porn, with few exceptions, and in the sense of traditional porn, doesn't and never has existed on the internet or elsewhere, that there is no industry or corresponding market, or that most people interested in this stuff are closet types who, if given the choice, would happily stay in their basements and talk to no one.
Complicating the matter is that kids are maturing earlier, sex is everywhere (whatever that means), and there's no one at home or with the time to watch over them (both parents are working). This shifts the responsibilities and obligations to everyone else. But since few want such a role, legislation is required to force us, however indirectly, into taking on those responsibilities. And to make it easier, we need to create a bogeyman to justify things.
Remember, "abuse" is whatever Dr. Phil says it is, so with everyone being "abused" these days, our legislators are only too happy to pass more laws. Law enforcement, of course, are equally happy, but most often for very different reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you think that it's a *bit* more likely that the document is a fake.
...) are better in the morality department
... well does anything really need to be said ?
Possibly, but does it matter? The US has been assassinating leaders, overthrowing governments and generally mucking around repeatedly in another countries throughout the last century.
Besides, please explain how non-western (what ? commie ? islamist ?
How is that relevant? Is the measure of man his deeds and actions, or what he professes to believe in?
The current iranian administration killed 500.000 kids (well, they sent them straight into Saddam's bullets after giving them a carton "key to heaven" - this is NOT a joke). North Korea
Iraq and Iran were at war for years. Sending "kids" to fight is what countries to do when they're fighting a war. When the US sent kids to Vietnam, no patriotic American would have considered using such inflammatory contructs as "killing our kids" or "sending them into Viet Cong bullets". If you're trying to leverage the tired argument that Sadaam Hussein was a Really Bad Man because of what he did in the 1980s, then I'd suggest you look into what your government was doing at the time. Better yet, ask Donald Rumsfeld. He was there, playing an active role helping Sadaam protect Americans from the Iranians.
Unfortunately western governments are the best governments there are. They're VERY far from perfect. However they beat the crap out of every other "style" of government.
That's relevant only insofar as it makes you feel good about your country. Past that, I'd offer the suggestion that if you want to be informed and feel good at the same time, you'll ponder the concept that having a "better" form of government confers no special privilege or right to behave as "lesser" forms of government. Put another way, acting like an asshole makes you an asshole. And if you're an asshole or repeatedly behave like one, folks standing around tend to take notice and remember, and then go on to teach their kids what they learned.
Does this mean you can't win wars by giving the enemy a lollipop?
No, but if the overthrow of the popularly elected democratic government in Iran way back when is any indication, it does suggest that you can avoid wars by staying out of other people's business. Put another way, getting out of the habit of pissing people off might get you your own lollipop.
I mean, where are the true believers now? Does anyone seriously think that western governments have any kind of moral credibility?
An insightful comment if ever I read one.
Also worth pointing out this gives lie to the "They hate us for our freedom" rubbish repeatedly heard from our leaders when conflicts and violence occur in unfamiliar parts of the world. The really sad thing is that any student of American history could say this is a non-story.
Sometimes it's a bitch looking into the mirror.
Yeah, can you imagine the nightmarish Orwelian scenario where citizens wouldn't know how the FCC classified their broadband access in their area?
It's entirely possible that knowing the classification may not help, any more than "Sucks" can be considered an improvement over "Really Sucks", or even "Holy Batman This Really Sucks!".
Here is how to get more or less the old behavior. Go to about:config and set browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped to true and browser.urlbar.richResults to false. Then restart.
Nifty. But allow me to interject my favourite whine:
Why isn't this shit documented and distributed?
And no, the Help menu doesn't count, as it's as dumbed down and useless as anything provided by Microsoft, nor is bouncing around the web looking for "knowledgebase" articles and editable wikis (hello Mozillazine), when a frigging manpage or two would have sufficed.
Did they study the effects of going 45 in a 55?
From my experience, not driving 75 in a 65 zone elicits plenty of rage.
There was an incident recently in or near LA where one driver got so upset he repeatedly rammed the car that he believed was causing him grief. Both cars were banged up so badly that you'd think it was from a scene in movie. IIRC, he was an educated professional (the other driver was woman), but that didn't prevent him from being charged with multiple felonies.
My own preference, and possibly the most sensible approach for dealing with excitable drivers, is simply to get out of their way. The exception, at least for me, is when I'm driving down my own street or somewhere similar where the speed limit is 25 and there's lots of kids and pedestrians. Ironically, it's only the soccer moms and teenagers that seem to have a problem with that.
Part of the Chinese culture? That little tradition used to be polite behaviour in the west too.
Not to the extent it is elsewhere.
A friend of mine told me a funny story years ago of his parents when they first arrived in the US. His mother received an invitation from the neighbours for a housewarming dinner. When she arrived, the hostess came up to her and suggested she help herself from the buffet. The conversation proceeded along the following lines:
"No, thank you."
"You really must."
"I'm sorry, but I really shouldn't."
"I insist."
"Thank you for your hospitality, but I really can't."
"Ok. Suit yourself, then."
When his mother returned home in tears, her husband asked her what had happened. She said she had never felt so insulted, and didn't eat a thing. When he asked why she didn't eat anything, she replied, "The hostess didn't insist the third time!"
Funny thing is, I get a lot more paper spam than email spam. From where I stand, paper spam is a worse problem.
Where you stand (in the simplest scenario possible) is at the other end of a connection to a server deluged with spam day in and day out, and where the email admin is doing his damnedest to ensure you don't get any of it, while making sure that your mail gets to you without being swallowed up by the mess. And if he's having any success, you won't be asked to pull your head out of your ass to realise that just because it's sunny where you are, it might be raining somewhere nearby.
ideas are not property!
While I agree with your sentiments, I'm afraid you'll have to make your case to everyone from economists to business leaders to the folks in government to those working in various thinktanks to the punditocracy. Their thinking goes along the following lines:
Because the US economy is a now a service economy (the manufacturing base having long since migrated to places like China), intellectual property is our sole asset. Ergo, the protection of intellectual property rights deserves not only the highest priority, but also is key to the economic growth.
Nothwithstanding Slashdot's favourite issues du jour (including, but not limited to the abusive behaviour of the entertainment industries, the widely held but erroneous perception that software is sold in shrinkwrapped boxes only, the urgent need for patent reform, and the erosion of consumer rights), those advocating increased IP protection, I'm afraid, do have a valid argument. The problem is that to the extent their argument is valid, the measures taken typical range from the ridiculous to the absurd.
Especially when Lotus Notes already does all those things... and does them better!
Didn't you hear? The White House IT people testified before a Senate subcommittee that Notes was obsolete technology. And everyone nodded in approval.
Oddly enough, it was these same people that couldn't determine whether any mail was missing, and were having a heck of a time trying to restore Exchange backups, though to their benefit, they did acknowledge that they were investigating third-party solutions.
Sending mails with a specific line width sucks if my display is smaller or wider then what the sender think is the right linesize.
Bad or innappropriate line lengths, as well as formatting in general, are problems faced by just about everyone. Mobile users are unique, but that's not to say the rest of us aren't inconvenienced for similar reasons.
I read volumes of email in an 80 character terminal. If I need to see code (something that should never be wrapped), I expand my screen. I sure as hell don't need the entire email adjusting so I get paragraphs as wide as my screen.
There's lots of reason why line length is traditionally set at around 72 characters. Unless, of course, you're one of those that believe emails are written for your benefit, and not the benefit of the reader.
What If I am on a mobile device which can only show 60 chars on a line. If you email have a newline after 80 chars, it will not look good.
Mobile devices are problematic, both for the mobile user, and for everyone forced to communicate with someone using a mobile device. The format-flowed approach works, of course (unless you need to clean up someone's mess to read something), but I wouldn't suggest using a mobile device to send or receive mail from mailing lists unless you want problems on both ends.
Well, the teardrop shape is less space efficient than a box, and most vehicles don't go fast enough often enough to make use of quality aerodynamics.
Perhaps, but I doubt any of the car makers trying to meet CAFE standards, or struggling to appeal to new car buyers by boosting the mileage on any of their models up a few points, are going to agree.
There's a reason why most cars on the road today all look the same. And it ain't because they were all designed by the same guy.
Is a Slashdot post the place for a blow by blow account of the reasons for Notepad++ being good?
Maybe I should rephrase.
Is a post offering a one-liner recommendation of any value?
My answer would be "Yes, if I wanted a feel-good reinforcement of an identical personal choice, or if I knew and understood you or your work habits fairly well to put your choice in some meaningful context. But I don't on both counts. So no."
I could go on for ages, I've become quite a fan.
I'm sure you could. And I'm sure you'd agree I or anyone else could go on for ages about why they believe your choice is a bad one, innapropriate for them, or why their choices are better. Come to think of it, that's Slashdot. Fun reading if you can wade through all the redundant "Me too" or "Here's mine", but typically of little value, save for posts by those who actually make the case for something in adequate detail, offer some insight, or otherwise have something new to say (a tough thing when the subject is text editors and programming tools).
Put another way, the fact that I consider Notepad++ silly doesn't mean that for you, silly works. I'd just prefer people refrain from one-liner recommendations because they clutter up everyone's screen, or invite people like me writing long-assed posts justifying minor points of contention. Hell, a few more "Notepad++ is the bomb" and people might be inclined to rush out and download it.
Do you want them to face the disappointment of yet another program they probably won't use, that their friends might laugh, or otherwise suffer the disappointment of learning that their editor is not The One True Editor? And what about email? How are they going to send email? I mean, won't somebody think of the kids?
Actually I find that I use Notepad++ these days, it does enough of what Emacs does ...
Bah. What good is an editor that doesn't include email, usenet, telnet and ftp functions?
Seriously, though, I don't doubt your sincerity, but whenever I read something along the lines of "It works great!", I wonder why it is the endorsement never includes its limitations, or what should be a requisite qualifier of "It works, but only for the limited manner in which I need it to work."
I never realized that I was psychic, but how could Detroit not have seen this coming? ... Almost as if the 1970s never happened.
For folks that weren't there in the 70s, there were no SUVs, but there were plenty of stationwagons and similarly absurd mostrosities. The oil ran short, the car industry tanked ("We didn't see it coming!"), people suffered, and those seeking someone to blame took turns between pointing to Jimmy Carter and dark-skinned foreigners with strange customs.
Needless to say, the Japanese saw the opportunity and took it. After a few years, we started pointed our fingers at them ("The Japs are going to rule the world!"), but once the idea of owning a Honda or Toyota became less exotic, and they started building plants here to keep up with the demand, we had no choice but to get over our misgivings.
I hope Ford and GM go bankrupt for their shortsightedness.
I remember a comment Chrysler's Lee Iacoca made in the 90s when looking back at his company's ill-fated K-cars (cars designed to compete head-on with the Japanese using techniques that were going to revolutionise car building in the United States), "Yeah, we did build a lot of shitty cars in the 80s." They built a lot shitty cars in the 90s, but he was no longer around to be asked about it.
Chrysler's gone, and Ford and GM may deserve to go as well, despite that they do make better quality vehicles than they used to. The problem is that a large part of the economy depends on the car industry, and an ever larger share of certain local economies depend on it. If either goes under, the ordinary person will suffer. Not that they aren't already.
Personally, I view this as a collective if not national embarassment. Everyone deserves part of the blame just like everyone pays part of the price. Asking the question of why are we doing it to ourselves yet again somehow seems redundant.
A well seasoned cast iron implement also has the advantage of being relatively non-stick ...
Well-seasoned cast iron also has other advantages other than being non-stick (not relatively, but most definitely) that include more even and higher temperatures (for superiour browning), requiring no soap and water to clean, and being oven-safe (oven-friendly, actually) so you can cook using using any method or methods you choose.
Then again, cast iron went out of fashion years ago when women started working in professional kitchens and found them too heavy for regular use, and the introduction of electric stoves (which don't generate a high enough heat) probably didn't help matters. It's a shame, really, and any westerner who's been in a Chinese kitchen and seen a wok seasoned over 20 years put to regular demanding use would probably agree.
And what is that plants crave?
A person who remembers a lot doesn't necessarily have the ability to put concepts together and form new ones.
Oddly enough, without the ability to memorise a bunch of boring facts, it's impossible to derive a concept. Or be able to evaluate the validity of the concepts.
I don't care whether it's rote memorisation of multiplication tables by grade schoolers, memorisation of names and dates for high schoolers studying history (or whatever they call it today), or a shitload of Latin by those studying some of the sciences, without being able to do the work, and actually doing it, you can't possibly progress to understanding anything.
For most, I guess, that's too hard, especially when Google not only provides such a convenient excuse, but also proxies your own knowledge so nothing is ever required or expected of you.
So either the USA government is doing a much better job of keeping even the fact that phones are tapped at all hidden from public scrutiny, or it really is much, much worse here (in this regard, at least).
Much worse only begins to describe it. The Netherlands have more than 10x the number of terrorists we do.
This is why I walk my dog a different route each day. I don't even know what route we will take until we are back. It adds a little bit of surprise and a little bit of uncertainty into an otherwise very uniform and repetitive existence.
... single ... time.
LOL. You do know that dogs are creatures of habit? I have a little walk in my backyard made of staggered stepping stones. Really hard to walk on, but it's there so I have someplace to stand when I'm watering the lawn by hand and can get back to the house without getting my feet too wet when I'm done. The funny thing is most all of the year, I never use the walk, but when I'm outside playing fetch with the dog, he catches the ball and uses the walk to come back. Every
If you're taking different routes on a daily basis, my guess is you have a happy, but neurotic dog.
Not that any of this has much to do with article. My dog's never been to Europe, doesn't have a cellphone, or even a Slashdot account, but if he did, I'm sure he'd have something interesting to say.
Total waste of time and money!
Yes and no. For someone buying a laptop and then making regular use of this technology, it's absurd, or at least little more than a toy when viwed from a security perspective. On the other, we all seem to be heading to a future where computers are, or least behave, in a more personal manner, so in that sense, this technology is, for lack of a better word, a really cool idea.
Then, consider that the world around around us is demanding increased security and is thus subject to increased surveillance and control. That's true from the CCTV cameras monitored by law enforcement, to the folks at your local DMV or voting precinct trying to prevent fraud, to the liquor store owner checking his store while he's at home. It's a fair assumption that with increasing interest in these technologies, we'll see a corresponding increases in research and development, which will, in the end, lead to widespread usage of whatever technology wins out, whether that's iris scans, fingerprints. forearm barcode tatoos, DNA, faces, or a combination of any of the above. If you took a vote on which approach people want, I doubt anyone would say "It's more passwords and PINs for me!".
If it becomes possible to replace every lock and key with some sort of recognition software, would you complain, or tout all the benefits? Or if you could save tax dollars by replacing local security on the streets and Home Depots everywhere with similar software, would you view that a good or bad idea?
Let's face it, the above scenarios aren't very likely, at least in the short term. We're still working on voice recognition. For now, however, it doesn't mean we can't have fun playing with Toshiba laptops.
I've noticed that theres a small contingent of very nationalistic Chinese Slashdot users who get butthurt whenever anyone says anything remotely negative about the Chinese government.
Not just Slashot users, but Chinese in general. I watched a news program or documentary recently that covered the subject, and it turns out the Chinese, the young and college educated particularly, exhibit the same reaction.
It turns out that, and I'm generalising here, the Chinese, if they don't "like it that way". have few objections to strong government control. For a westerner that might be hard to fathom, but I think it's unfair to dismiss their preferences as absurd or characterise them as the result of some sort of brainwashing.
What shouldn't be hard to fathom is that for someone who's Chinese, China is their country. Last I checked, national pride is a universal phenomenon, and treading on other's sense of identity or pride, however enlightened or well-intentioned, is always bad form and inevitably leads to conflict.
Given this, your question about the "degree of might", that degree gets pushed to 100%
Sorry, but I disagree. The study is absurd and illogical. You can do a similar study any day of the week by taking a group of convicted rapists and asking them whether they liked watching porn, and whether they "used it" (to the extent that construct is meaningful) before going out to the bars, to the titty clubs or to get juiced up before attacking some woman in a parking lot.
The results are the same. And prove nothing.
Hell, next we'll be hearing from someone citing a study associating alcohol usage with wife battery as evidence that alcohol should be made illegal. Or for a more refined line of reasoning, that alcohol usage in any form should be made illegal because it encourages sexual boldness on the part of the drinker, and a corrupting influence on the judgment and reasoning of the partner. True, but so fucking what?
Here's a tip: everybody enjoys sexually stimulating material. That includes rapists, murderers, and shoplifers as it does perfectly ordinary people. What escapes those who advocate the association equals causation line of reasoning is that those groups really have nothing in common, and will continue to have nothing in common irrespective of how stimulated they get. Similarly ignored is the irony of the more porn you watch, the less likely your are to engage in any interpersonal acts.
Seeking to prove some element of causation is a dubious effort that offers insignificant results as it silently and irresponsibily ignore the fact that almost all real abuse happens in the home or by a relative. Even worse, the hysteria it promotes causes damage to society at large and the well-meaning, well-intentioned advocacy groups are a disservice to their own cause.
No private company should be so entrenched in society that it would be impossible to survive without the service they provide.
An insightful comment if ever I read one, but I'm afraid you're a few generations late. As a society we gave up believing in government, institutions of power or authority, religeon, civic responsibility and most all notions of tradition, and adopted instead a belief in individuality and self-fullfilment. That doesn't leave us with much, does it?
If the current trend continues and free market idealogues get to rule the day, we should expect to have everything from infrastructure to institutions ruled and run entirely by corporations (to the extent they don't already), and we'll all be working for Taco Bell or for The Brawndo Corporation.
The situation can also be viewed political terms. A good portion of the electorate really does believe that government is evil, that government can't possibly do anything as efficiently or as cheaply as business, and that taxes infringe on their God given rights, but they're only too happy to let the Walmarts of the world take over provided they can maintain the illusion they've kept a few extra dollars in their own pockets.
The people who complain about undue corporate influence on government probably don't notice that they've succumbed to those same influences in their own lives, but they might notice when there's nothing left to sell off, somebody else holds all the cards and those free-market choices they've been promised come up short.
Google, I think, is doing what any business does, and that's fulfulling an unmet need and making or trying to make a profit in doing so. The question is why we're not doing it ourselves?
How does producing images that look like child porn without actually abusing children encourage crimes against children?
It doesn't, in the same way that producing images that look like Natalie Portman encourages crimes against Natalie Portman.
But that's not the point, is it? The fear underlying all this legislation is that someone "might" want to view such images, and "might" want to do something after viewing them. Given the current hysteria, any degree of "might" (in any context) is considered unacceptable. That's where the thinking starts and stops.
Forget the logic, or that most all real abuse happens in the home or by a close relative, or that child porn, with few exceptions, and in the sense of traditional porn, doesn't and never has existed on the internet or elsewhere, that there is no industry or corresponding market, or that most people interested in this stuff are closet types who, if given the choice, would happily stay in their basements and talk to no one.
Complicating the matter is that kids are maturing earlier, sex is everywhere (whatever that means), and there's no one at home or with the time to watch over them (both parents are working). This shifts the responsibilities and obligations to everyone else. But since few want such a role, legislation is required to force us, however indirectly, into taking on those responsibilities. And to make it easier, we need to create a bogeyman to justify things.
Remember, "abuse" is whatever Dr. Phil says it is, so with everyone being "abused" these days, our legislators are only too happy to pass more laws. Law enforcement, of course, are equally happy, but most often for very different reasons.