Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem to be a really big problem having someone talking on a phone next to me. He's either talking on the phone or talking to his neighbor. It's all the same to me. Also, airplanes are so loud that you can't hear anyone more than a few feet away anyhow.
OK, so you're advocating expanding police forces by an order of magnitude to 'protect' everybody? Mind if I ask how you intend to pay for it?
First of all, I never said that. Second of all, the police force is doing just fine. I have never owned a gun. I never will own a gun. I have done just fine personally. Unless you are well-trained with a gun, it is a liability not a defense. I have shot a gun before and I can't hit the broad-side of a barn. Of course, some would then argue that I should practice and become a marksman. But why? On the off chance that someone breaks into my house and I happen to be holding my gun at the time instead of having it locked in a gun-locker so my kids don't shoot themselves. No, the self-defense argument is ridiculous. Who has used a gun for self-defense? There are those, but not many. Most of my friends growing up had guns (I grew up in Montana). None of them ever used it for self-defense. One of them did shoot and kill his friend accidentally when drunk though.
The main reason for owning guns is to keep the government in line.
I always hear this when discussing the issue of guns. I have never once in my lifetime seen any case where someone with a gun has kept the government in line. I am talking about our government of course. I've seen wackos use guns to fight the government, but never a case where someone has defended their legitimate rights with a gun.
It appears that there is, in fact, not just a "little argument," but a lot of argument as to the purpose of the 2nd amendment. I don't believe that the reason you sited is true and I can give you a lot more people who would probably also take issue with your interpretation of the purpose behind the 2nd amendment. If there was in fact "little argument," then we wouldn't have the issues that we have right now.
And regardless of what the Founding Fathers wanted, we have to decide what works for us today. The constitution was, in my opinion, intentionally vague on many issues. The Founding Fathers could have made the 2nd amendment two hundred pages long, explaining all of the different contingencies. But they didn't. They made it vague enough that it can fit with changing times and practices. It's a much different world than the one in which the Bill of Rights was written. We need to stop worrying about what the Founding Fathers want and start thinking about what will continue to ensure the greatness of this nation in which we live.
The difference being the fact that the 2nd amendment makes direct reference to the collective to which it is referring. I'm not saying that I necessarily believe the collective argument, but accepting a collective interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not affect the interpretation of other amendments because they do not refer to a collective group (i.e. a well-regulated militia).
So the question becomes where the line of self-defense is drawn. I think we can both agree that the average citizen shouldn't have the right to own a bazooka or a nuclear warhead for example. Those implements could be used for self-defense, but it's just going too far. Therefore, we can both agree that there is a limit to the types of arms we can bear. The issue then becomes a question of what is permissible. There are many people, myself included, that claim that we should not have handguns for the same reason we should not be allowed to have bazookas.
Maybe you are un-aware that the article has nothing to do with MacOSX. The article is a comparison between Windows XP and Vista. I'm confused how that translates to a slant by the author.
I disagree. I am devote Christian and believe very strongly in the "separation of church and state." I know; I know. That phrase never appears in the constitution, but it gets at the matter better than referring to the "establishment clause." It is not a creation of the Supreme Court though. It is very clear that the Founding Fathers were very careful to keep religion out of the constitution. I hear people claim that the framers of the constitution intended this to be a Christian nation and things like that. To statements to that affect, I always have the same question. If that is the case, why didn't they say it in the constitution?
Regarding prayer in schools, I used to agree with you. I used to believe that banning school prayer and what-not endorsed atheism. Then I thought about it for a moment. That's all it took for me to realize that that is ridiculous. They aren't teaching you to not pray. They aren't taking time to inform you that God is a lie. No, they are simply saying that school is not the place for prayer.
Ok, let me clarify. Most of our informational interaction with the world is 2D. We read 2D books. We look at 2D pictures. We write notes to our friends on 2D pieces of paper. We put magnets on the 2D surface of the fridge. We write research papers on 2D surfaces. So much of how we extract information from our surroundings is very two dimensional.
Imagine how much more useful your computer experience would be if you were able to design a virtual office as large or complex as you needed, and reach anything in it without leaving your chair.
I have heard this assertion before and I still don't see any validity to it. Maybe I'm missing the vision. Maybe in 10 years I'll look back at comments like this one I'm writing and say, "What was I thinking?!" Maybe, so, but I just don't understand how a 3D desktop experience will offer me any improvement to productivity. While it is true that we live in a 3D world, most of what we do is 2D in nature. For example, writing on a piece of paper is a very 2D experience. A desktop top (real world, not computer) is a fairly 2D environment for most people. When I'm typing a paper, I don't want the paper to be in perspective on my computer. I want it to fill the screen. I don't need to see fake avatar hands writing the paper out. This is great for video games, but not for actual productive work.
Also, I don't need an avatar to communicate. I enjoy playing WoW. But even on WoW I don't need the avatar to communicate with someone. Rarely am I even looking at the people I'm talking with. No, I believe that phone calls and email work just fine. If I need to interact with the person directly, then I can video conference.
I really feel that people who push for the 3D GUIs fail to stop and think about whether there is any usefulness to this technology they keep tauting. I am of the belief that they do not. People think 3D is cool and want to be in Johnny Mnemonic I guess.
Another thing that would increase kids grades is never allowing them to do anything but go to school and study. Kids shouldn't be given summer breaks either. That will cut into their learning time. For heaven's sake, there are other things besides getting good grades that contribute to a happy life. I'm sure I would be more successful in my life if I never played video games, but I enjoy playing video games. They make me happy. That, of course, does not mean that we should be over-doing it; there needs to be moderation. But I say let the kids play some video games. If it drops their GPA.3 (unlikely), big deal; they'll be happier (especially if the parents are playing the video games with the kids).
No, the answer is not simple. It's a matter of priorities. The problem is not that nobody cares about bugs. That is not what causes bugs to not be dealt with. What causes bugs to continue on to release is a number of things. First of all, good luck testing every possible situation that every possible piece of software might be used. If you are a software developer, then you know that spotting bugs isn't easy. Most of us follow specific paths when we traverse software. Identifying other paths of execution is difficult. It takes a very talented QC department. Another problem is priorities. Let's assume that you have the choice of purchasing a game that crashes once a week for $20, or a game that never crashes for $80. I would choose the first personally. There's the problem. Testing costs money. The more testing you do, the more money it costs. This is also an issue with time. If I have a problem that needs to be solved by a computer, I would rather have a solution that is a little buggy today than a perfect solution in three years. We always want everything without the cost. Sometimes it sucks being a software engineer.
One day maybe game reviewers and publishers will shut up about how much bump mapping the game has, shut up about what hollywood actor did the voiceover, shut up about how long they *think* it takes to complete it, and just sell their game on the basis of it being a GOOD game.
Thank you for expressing very well the reason that I have not purchased an Xbox 360, won't buy a PS3, and will go out on release day to get me a Wii.
Speaking of which, I'd rather you not use ridiculous terms like "web 1.0+". You shouldn't use invented terms like blog, podcast, or web 1.0 like all those damn disrespectful children.</sarcasm>
Do you even have children? Have you even interacted with the youth of today? I'm going to have to agree with the grandparent that kids aren't that much different today as they were when you and I were children. The colors may be different, but it's still the same painting.
The beauty of Gmail is that all of its services are tied to your one username, and you can access it anywhere! (And often, the services are interwoven, like Calender and Gmail)
I disagree. We have a game room at work with twelve computers. We generally play Unreal. If all of the computers are filled, many times I will still stick around and watch the other players play for a little while. I prefer to play, but I enjoy watching other people play. I especially enjoy watching really talented people play.
The difficult part I think would be getting good visual shots. The best view for watching the action as a spectator would not be from a player's screen. A third-person view would be much better. So, I think the best way to turn this into entertaining television would be to record the world during the entire game. Then you could go back and fly a camera around to any location you wanted. Granted, I don't think any game permits a recording of the entire game world, but it would be possible.
Something I think is interesting is how we have this inate desire for the human race to continue. Realistically, why should we care whether or not the human race continues after our lives or kills itself off within 12 months of our death? It really shouldn't matter to us at all. And yet, it does. I know that I am all for the colonization of Mars for the purpose of human preservation. I have always found this to be an interesting yet wonderful trait of humans (I suspect animals are like this as well). It has a very simple evolutionary explanation, but it's still cool.
Actually, the statistics show that crime has been on a steady decline since around the time the internet started to become big. I am not claiming any connection between the decline in crime and the internet, but it is clearly not surging crime like crazy. Just like everything, the internet can be used as a tool for a criminal, but it does not a criminal make.
Also, as with almost all Slashdot articles lately, this is a ridiculous article. There are much easier ways to find a target. If you want to know if someone isn't home, go pretend to be collecting for a charity. When you reach a house where no one answers, bingo! That's a lot easier than searching for calendars in the hopes of finding someone in your area. A much better example of the danger of sharing your calendar would be if you have a stalker or crazy ex-girlfriend. Unfortunately, I'm not attractive enough to have either.
The parent couldn't be more correct in his explanation of the problems with adaptive technology. I may have been the only person who saw "Click" (the new Adam Sandler movie). Regardless of the quality of the movie, it shows this problem really well. We all think we want adaptive technology, until we actually use it, at which point we get extremely pissed. Oddly, we always blame the implementation, whereas the parent gives a good argument that it's not the implementation but the paradigm that is to blame.
That all said, I do think that Apple is starting to figure out how to do some adaptive-esque things. The trick, I believe, is providing shortcuts based upon experience without completely changing the interface. Example: don't hide unused options in my menu, instead, create a menu for frequently used options.
Am I the only one who isn't very alarmed by all of this? Everytime someone claims that 1984 has arrived and Big Brother is here (which seems to be about once a week) I have to ask myself, "Have any of these people read 1984?" Our society is so much better than 1984. I also highly doubt that it will ever get to that point. While our actions are monitored by everyone, we still have civil liberties. I'm sure that if anyone cares to look into the records, they would be able to learn that I hate Bush. Even so, I have yet to receive any knocks on my door from guys in black suits. We still have the right to assemble. No one is going back and changing the past ala the Ministry of Truth. No, 2006 is a long way off from 1984.
Does anyone else believe that life now is better than it has ever been in history. We have less war, less disease, people seem to be friendlier, open source is flourishing, crime is down. It's about time people stop being such pessimists and simply open their eyes to how wonderful the world is now.
I used to believe that mandatory voting was a good idea until I lived in a country with mandatory voting. I lived in Argentina for a couple of years, where you are required to vote in elections. In my experience, the candidates would go around to the slums and hand-out hotdogs telling people to vote for them. If voting were not mandatory, then those people would have taken the hotdog and not voted. They had to vote though. So when they were in the booth they voted for the guy who gave him the hotdog. After all, who knows, there might be more hotdogs.
It seems to me that mandatory voting encourages political machines, which is something we definitely do not want.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem to be a really big problem having someone talking on a phone next to me. He's either talking on the phone or talking to his neighbor. It's all the same to me. Also, airplanes are so loud that you can't hear anyone more than a few feet away anyhow.
OK, so you're advocating expanding police forces by an order of magnitude to 'protect' everybody? Mind if I ask how you intend to pay for it?
First of all, I never said that. Second of all, the police force is doing just fine. I have never owned a gun. I never will own a gun. I have done just fine personally. Unless you are well-trained with a gun, it is a liability not a defense. I have shot a gun before and I can't hit the broad-side of a barn. Of course, some would then argue that I should practice and become a marksman. But why? On the off chance that someone breaks into my house and I happen to be holding my gun at the time instead of having it locked in a gun-locker so my kids don't shoot themselves. No, the self-defense argument is ridiculous. Who has used a gun for self-defense? There are those, but not many. Most of my friends growing up had guns (I grew up in Montana). None of them ever used it for self-defense. One of them did shoot and kill his friend accidentally when drunk though.
The main reason for owning guns is to keep the government in line.
I always hear this when discussing the issue of guns. I have never once in my lifetime seen any case where someone with a gun has kept the government in line. I am talking about our government of course. I've seen wackos use guns to fight the government, but never a case where someone has defended their legitimate rights with a gun.
It appears that there is, in fact, not just a "little argument," but a lot of argument as to the purpose of the 2nd amendment. I don't believe that the reason you sited is true and I can give you a lot more people who would probably also take issue with your interpretation of the purpose behind the 2nd amendment. If there was in fact "little argument," then we wouldn't have the issues that we have right now.
And regardless of what the Founding Fathers wanted, we have to decide what works for us today. The constitution was, in my opinion, intentionally vague on many issues. The Founding Fathers could have made the 2nd amendment two hundred pages long, explaining all of the different contingencies. But they didn't. They made it vague enough that it can fit with changing times and practices. It's a much different world than the one in which the Bill of Rights was written. We need to stop worrying about what the Founding Fathers want and start thinking about what will continue to ensure the greatness of this nation in which we live.
The difference being the fact that the 2nd amendment makes direct reference to the collective to which it is referring. I'm not saying that I necessarily believe the collective argument, but accepting a collective interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not affect the interpretation of other amendments because they do not refer to a collective group (i.e. a well-regulated militia).
So the question becomes where the line of self-defense is drawn. I think we can both agree that the average citizen shouldn't have the right to own a bazooka or a nuclear warhead for example. Those implements could be used for self-defense, but it's just going too far. Therefore, we can both agree that there is a limit to the types of arms we can bear. The issue then becomes a question of what is permissible. There are many people, myself included, that claim that we should not have handguns for the same reason we should not be allowed to have bazookas.
Maybe you are un-aware that the article has nothing to do with MacOSX. The article is a comparison between Windows XP and Vista. I'm confused how that translates to a slant by the author.
So you're saying that my investment strategy is a good one? Awesome! I'm going to go count my jars.
I disagree. I am devote Christian and believe very strongly in the "separation of church and state." I know; I know. That phrase never appears in the constitution, but it gets at the matter better than referring to the "establishment clause." It is not a creation of the Supreme Court though. It is very clear that the Founding Fathers were very careful to keep religion out of the constitution. I hear people claim that the framers of the constitution intended this to be a Christian nation and things like that. To statements to that affect, I always have the same question. If that is the case, why didn't they say it in the constitution?
Regarding prayer in schools, I used to agree with you. I used to believe that banning school prayer and what-not endorsed atheism. Then I thought about it for a moment. That's all it took for me to realize that that is ridiculous. They aren't teaching you to not pray. They aren't taking time to inform you that God is a lie. No, they are simply saying that school is not the place for prayer.
Ok, let me clarify. Most of our informational interaction with the world is 2D. We read 2D books. We look at 2D pictures. We write notes to our friends on 2D pieces of paper. We put magnets on the 2D surface of the fridge. We write research papers on 2D surfaces. So much of how we extract information from our surroundings is very two dimensional.
Imagine how much more useful your computer experience would be if you were able to design a virtual office as large or complex as you needed, and reach anything in it without leaving your chair.
I have heard this assertion before and I still don't see any validity to it. Maybe I'm missing the vision. Maybe in 10 years I'll look back at comments like this one I'm writing and say, "What was I thinking?!" Maybe, so, but I just don't understand how a 3D desktop experience will offer me any improvement to productivity. While it is true that we live in a 3D world, most of what we do is 2D in nature. For example, writing on a piece of paper is a very 2D experience. A desktop top (real world, not computer) is a fairly 2D environment for most people. When I'm typing a paper, I don't want the paper to be in perspective on my computer. I want it to fill the screen. I don't need to see fake avatar hands writing the paper out. This is great for video games, but not for actual productive work.
Also, I don't need an avatar to communicate. I enjoy playing WoW. But even on WoW I don't need the avatar to communicate with someone. Rarely am I even looking at the people I'm talking with. No, I believe that phone calls and email work just fine. If I need to interact with the person directly, then I can video conference.
I really feel that people who push for the 3D GUIs fail to stop and think about whether there is any usefulness to this technology they keep tauting. I am of the belief that they do not. People think 3D is cool and want to be in Johnny Mnemonic I guess.
Another thing that would increase kids grades is never allowing them to do anything but go to school and study. Kids shouldn't be given summer breaks either. That will cut into their learning time. For heaven's sake, there are other things besides getting good grades that contribute to a happy life. I'm sure I would be more successful in my life if I never played video games, but I enjoy playing video games. They make me happy. That, of course, does not mean that we should be over-doing it; there needs to be moderation. But I say let the kids play some video games. If it drops their GPA .3 (unlikely), big deal; they'll be happier (especially if the parents are playing the video games with the kids).
No, the answer is not simple. It's a matter of priorities. The problem is not that nobody cares about bugs. That is not what causes bugs to not be dealt with. What causes bugs to continue on to release is a number of things. First of all, good luck testing every possible situation that every possible piece of software might be used. If you are a software developer, then you know that spotting bugs isn't easy. Most of us follow specific paths when we traverse software. Identifying other paths of execution is difficult. It takes a very talented QC department. Another problem is priorities. Let's assume that you have the choice of purchasing a game that crashes once a week for $20, or a game that never crashes for $80. I would choose the first personally. There's the problem. Testing costs money. The more testing you do, the more money it costs. This is also an issue with time. If I have a problem that needs to be solved by a computer, I would rather have a solution that is a little buggy today than a perfect solution in three years. We always want everything without the cost. Sometimes it sucks being a software engineer.
Wow, that is totally correct. That is something to remember.
One day maybe game reviewers and publishers will shut up about how much bump mapping the game has, shut up about what hollywood actor did the voiceover, shut up about how long they *think* it takes to complete it, and just sell their game on the basis of it being a GOOD game.
Thank you for expressing very well the reason that I have not purchased an Xbox 360, won't buy a PS3, and will go out on release day to get me a Wii.
Speaking of which, I'd rather you not use ridiculous terms like "web 1.0+". You shouldn't use invented terms like blog, podcast, or web 1.0 like all those damn disrespectful children.</sarcasm>
Do you even have children? Have you even interacted with the youth of today? I'm going to have to agree with the grandparent that kids aren't that much different today as they were when you and I were children. The colors may be different, but it's still the same painting.
The beauty of Gmail is that all of its services are tied to your one username, and you can access it anywhere! (And often, the services are interwoven, like Calender and Gmail)
Just like Yahoo!
I disagree. We have a game room at work with twelve computers. We generally play Unreal. If all of the computers are filled, many times I will still stick around and watch the other players play for a little while. I prefer to play, but I enjoy watching other people play. I especially enjoy watching really talented people play. The difficult part I think would be getting good visual shots. The best view for watching the action as a spectator would not be from a player's screen. A third-person view would be much better. So, I think the best way to turn this into entertaining television would be to record the world during the entire game. Then you could go back and fly a camera around to any location you wanted. Granted, I don't think any game permits a recording of the entire game world, but it would be possible.
Before irrigation, Egypt was green. GREEN! Now it's a fucking desert.
I also request the citation for this statement. I also refute it by a simple question. If Egypt was so green, why did they need irrigation?
Something I think is interesting is how we have this inate desire for the human race to continue. Realistically, why should we care whether or not the human race continues after our lives or kills itself off within 12 months of our death? It really shouldn't matter to us at all. And yet, it does. I know that I am all for the colonization of Mars for the purpose of human preservation. I have always found this to be an interesting yet wonderful trait of humans (I suspect animals are like this as well). It has a very simple evolutionary explanation, but it's still cool.
Actually, the statistics show that crime has been on a steady decline since around the time the internet started to become big. I am not claiming any connection between the decline in crime and the internet, but it is clearly not surging crime like crazy. Just like everything, the internet can be used as a tool for a criminal, but it does not a criminal make.
Also, as with almost all Slashdot articles lately, this is a ridiculous article. There are much easier ways to find a target. If you want to know if someone isn't home, go pretend to be collecting for a charity. When you reach a house where no one answers, bingo! That's a lot easier than searching for calendars in the hopes of finding someone in your area. A much better example of the danger of sharing your calendar would be if you have a stalker or crazy ex-girlfriend. Unfortunately, I'm not attractive enough to have either.
The parent couldn't be more correct in his explanation of the problems with adaptive technology. I may have been the only person who saw "Click" (the new Adam Sandler movie). Regardless of the quality of the movie, it shows this problem really well. We all think we want adaptive technology, until we actually use it, at which point we get extremely pissed. Oddly, we always blame the implementation, whereas the parent gives a good argument that it's not the implementation but the paradigm that is to blame.
That all said, I do think that Apple is starting to figure out how to do some adaptive-esque things. The trick, I believe, is providing shortcuts based upon experience without completely changing the interface. Example: don't hide unused options in my menu, instead, create a menu for frequently used options.
Am I the only one who isn't very alarmed by all of this? Everytime someone claims that 1984 has arrived and Big Brother is here (which seems to be about once a week) I have to ask myself, "Have any of these people read 1984?" Our society is so much better than 1984. I also highly doubt that it will ever get to that point. While our actions are monitored by everyone, we still have civil liberties. I'm sure that if anyone cares to look into the records, they would be able to learn that I hate Bush. Even so, I have yet to receive any knocks on my door from guys in black suits. We still have the right to assemble. No one is going back and changing the past ala the Ministry of Truth. No, 2006 is a long way off from 1984.
Does anyone else believe that life now is better than it has ever been in history. We have less war, less disease, people seem to be friendlier, open source is flourishing, crime is down. It's about time people stop being such pessimists and simply open their eyes to how wonderful the world is now.
I used to believe that mandatory voting was a good idea until I lived in a country with mandatory voting. I lived in Argentina for a couple of years, where you are required to vote in elections. In my experience, the candidates would go around to the slums and hand-out hotdogs telling people to vote for them. If voting were not mandatory, then those people would have taken the hotdog and not voted. They had to vote though. So when they were in the booth they voted for the guy who gave him the hotdog. After all, who knows, there might be more hotdogs.
It seems to me that mandatory voting encourages political machines, which is something we definitely do not want.