Linguistics shapes thought. By picking the meanings of words you end up shaping people's thoughts (ala Newspeak in Orwell's _1984_). Therefore when popular vote changes meanings of words it ALSO changes peoples' beliefs to match.
The way the web works is the perfect example of an application being "the UI getting out of sync with your actions" Your words, what you claim the web does, is exactly the opposite of what the web does. A web application is NEVER in sync with the UI. Ever.
The way to do what you are talking about is to accept that it is OKAY for the UI to be out of sync with the actions. It's okay for the UI to get ahead of the application and do stuff the application isn't aware of yet - that's called being A-syncronous, not being syncronous. That's why my statement is still 100% correct. It is impossible to do what you were talking about - divorce the UI widgets from the application and still keep the UI in sync. Your examples here support that and yet you claim they disprove it.
It did already happen to Firefox. That's why there exists a Firefox in the first place. If it had not happened, there wouldn't be both a Firefox and a Mozilla. There would just be a Mozilla. Firefox itself is the result of such a thing happening.
The relevant part of the quote was "in such a small space". The objection was not "I'm too tired", as you claim. The objection was not "I'm too elite" as you claim. The objection was "There's no way to explain it well enough to satisfy me right now in this small of a space, especially after I just spent a lot of time dealing with how complex it is. Right now I just can't write a short summary because my mind is still in the wrong context - the detailed complex view of things."
And then the stub he threw in there at that point ended up in the checked-in version. The programmer's error was not arrogance (Something your post shows you have a hell of a lot of). The programmer's error was not being careful enough about keeping something he knew had private not-for-publishing bits out of the main archive.
The problem is this chief difference in culture: In Japan, making something animated does not automatically mean you were trying to make a kid's show, or if it is adult, that it has to be a comedy like The Simpsons or Family Guy. In the USa, the public kinda does have that assumption.
The importers chief mistake is in assuming that animation and seriousness can never mix. Of course, the annoying thing is that the importers of this material are themselves responsible for continuing to perpetuate this mistaken assumption on the part of the US audience.
There is one slight problem though: TV is paid for with commercials. Fansubs don't have the commercials, and even if they did they wouldn't translate those too, and even if they did they would be advertising targetted at Japan, selling products that are only in that market, so the ads have no effectiveness on people outside Japan.
(However, I would love to see the ads, just because Japaneese ads are so oddball and surreal.)
This is a common problem with slashdot articles. They assume that since it's a site for geeks, that all geeks have exactly the same interests and therefore will know all the lingo of every sub-interest. If it was something about TCP/IP, or about Java, or C++, then yeah, you can assume everyone will know what it is. But if it's about a specific subset of geek interest, like fans subtitling animation that only was ever released in Japan, then people might not know the lingo and a simple few words of description would be helpful. A simple parenthetical phrase would be helpful, like "fansubbers (fans who make their own english subtitled versions of movies and TV, as opposed to the subtitles being done by someone getting paid for it as part of an official release.)"
And this annoyed me even though I personally already knew what "fansub" meant.
The title of the slashdot summary claims the bill in question is the cause of the increase. I don't see how it can make that claim. The rate of spam is rising, but it has always been rising. The most the article can claim is that the bill failed to slow the rate of spam. It cannot make the claim that the bill caused the rate to go up.
how about making all the gadgets independent of the app, so that an application can be slow and unresponsive without the UI getting out of sync with your actions.
That's impossible. The purpose of the UI is to give instructions to the app. If the app is unresponsive, then fiddling with UI buttons won't have any meaningful effect, unless they are UI buttons that are external to the app's purpose (like, resizing the window frame for example, is external to the app's purpose, but clicking a link inside a brwoser is not.)
Therefore to solve this problem requires that the app be written as either seperate processes or as seperate threads of a process. Either way, it's still the app coder that has to deal with it. And even then it doesn't really solve the problem. The real problem is, "why is the app hung in the first place?"
The error is that if a credit card number needs that much secrecy, then it should be in a masked field, like passwords are. Then it would be possible to pick whether you want to purge the history of it based on a very simple thing: If it's a password field, then purge it, else don't.
The bug is the site developer's fault. Credit cards should never be entered into an open plaintext field like that.
You try explaining cookies in a paragraph or two, in a way that: 1 - everyone will understand, and 2 - doesn't end up spreading misinformation by simplifying things more than is honestly possible.
When you attempt to simplify things too far, you end up lying.
The karma score is not just some stupid kiddie munchkin number. It unlocks parts of the slashdot interface. Once upon a time, you had to have the score above 45 in order to access everything. That was a problem with the cap at 50 becuase whether or not you got locked out of certain features depended entirely on on what order the mods came in. If you start at karma 50, and then six people mod you up and then right after that six people mod you down, your final score is 44 becuase those six mods up got effectively ignored. If they do it in the other order, six down, then six up, your final score is where it started, where it should be, at 50.
Now it seems (and I can't verify this) that the number to unlock features is no longer 45. I think it's been lowered, and therefore the problem is less of a problem than it used to be.
But don't make the mistake of assuming that people complaining about unfair karma tracking are always complaining about popularity. Sometimes they are complaining about being locked out of features.
Re:Sounds like a pretty good idea to me...
on
Microsoft in 2008
·
· Score: 1
Something I take advantage of every single day is NOT "unnecessary clutter". Maybe YOU don't use remotable X, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary.
Your proposed solution, of an X layer on top of something else, might work if it is integrated VERY well, but past attempts to do that very same thing have fared poorly (X on Windows, X on Mac). Mostly because for X to feel like X, it has to be using the whole screen and be in charge of the root window, the window manager, and so on.
Re:Sounds like a pretty good idea to me...
on
Microsoft in 2008
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Any attempt to get rid of X would have to be able to do all the things X can do or people like me would never go for it. Some things the Windows interface sucks at are: 1 - Having an independant window manager, so that the application's frame is NOT under its own control. This wins you several things, including being able to move or iconify an App that is unresponsive. 2 - Remotability that is not an added afterthought. Remotability that is always there, and always usable. 3 - Picking and choosing your interface tools that help (this has a lot to do with #1 above). 4 - mouse focus how you like it.
But if you need those peripherals that you are attaching with firewire and USB, you lose the whole point of having the mini in the first place- it's no longer so mini and out of the way - now it's a collection of seperate boxes connected by seperate cables and ends up being more of a clutter than just having a larger box would have been.
Does this mean the mini is a bad idea? No. I'm just saying that the ability to expand it with external devices is not the panacea that you portray it to be. I do like the idea of having all the connections to peripherals being external, but if I do that, the mini is no longer small, no longer portable, and no longer really "mini". It's just a full computer sans case.
Well, that's not the point. The point is that the poster wasn't even trying to make any sort of comparasin like that. Not even close. And yet here comes this fanatic to allegedly "fix" this misconception that the poster never showed any evidence of even having in the first place.
There's some folks out there who annoy the crap out of me, by being so fanatacal about topic Foo that they make the assuption that if you don't mention Foo in every single point you make, that must mean you are ignorant of Foo and need to be shown the error of your ways. The post here felt like one of those.
Does the poster currently live in Guantanamo Bay? No? Didn't think so. Take your agenda (which I agree with, by the way) and save it for a relevant discussion. This isn't it.
I understand the concept you describe, but it's highly deceptive to refer to it as the compiler "verifying correctness". Its merely verifying against rules that are just as prone to incorrectness as the code itself is. It's a good thing to do, but it's not what the article claimed was being worked on.
The problem is that you are comparing things from two different eras. You are comparing UED's size to a version of vi that got compiled long after UED did. If you compare to a version of vi that was contemporary with UED, then vi would come out looking small too. These days if I compile a one line "hello world" I end up with something 4 times bigger than I would have gotten in the '80s for the same exact source code.
What do you propose for this case? "they" seems quite natural to me here, and "he or she" seems not
I propose accepting that the language is broken. The problem I have is with those who claim the usage is "correct". It's NOT correct - it's just that it's the best of several broken, incorrect ways. Not every true thought is expressable in every language.
Slashdot Mirror
Linguistics shapes thought. By picking the meanings of words you end up shaping people's thoughts (ala Newspeak in Orwell's _1984_). Therefore when popular vote changes meanings of words it ALSO changes peoples' beliefs to match.
And if plenty of people use it, it's correct.
Truth is not subject to a democratic vote.
The way the web works is the perfect example of an application being "the UI getting out of sync with your actions" Your words, what you claim the web does, is exactly the opposite of what the web does. A web application is NEVER in sync with the UI. Ever.
The way to do what you are talking about is to accept that it is OKAY for the UI to be out of sync with the actions. It's okay for the UI to get ahead of the application and do stuff the application isn't aware of yet - that's called being A-syncronous, not being syncronous. That's why my statement is still 100% correct. It is impossible to do what you were talking about - divorce the UI widgets from the application and still keep the UI in sync. Your examples here support that and yet you claim they disprove it.
It did already happen to Firefox. That's why there exists a Firefox in the first place. If it had not happened, there wouldn't be both a Firefox and a Mozilla. There would just be a Mozilla. Firefox itself is the result of such a thing happening.
The relevant part of the quote was "in such a small space". The objection was not "I'm too tired", as you claim. The objection was not "I'm too elite" as you claim. The objection was "There's no way to explain it well enough to satisfy me right now in this small of a space, especially after I just spent a lot of time dealing with how complex it is. Right now I just can't write a short summary because my mind is still in the wrong context - the detailed complex view of things."
And then the stub he threw in there at that point ended up in the checked-in version. The programmer's error was not arrogance (Something your post shows you have a hell of a lot of). The programmer's error was not being careful enough about keeping something he knew had private not-for-publishing bits out of the main archive.
The problem is this chief difference in culture:
In Japan, making something animated does not automatically mean you were trying to make a kid's show, or if it is adult, that it has to be a comedy like The Simpsons or Family Guy. In the USa, the public kinda does have that assumption.
The importers chief mistake is in assuming that animation and seriousness can never mix. Of course, the annoying thing is that the importers of this material are themselves responsible for continuing to perpetuate this mistaken assumption on the part of the US audience.
There is one slight problem though: TV is paid for with commercials. Fansubs don't have the commercials, and even if they did they wouldn't translate those too, and even if they did they would be advertising targetted at Japan, selling products that are only in that market, so the ads have no effectiveness on people outside Japan.
(However, I would love to see the ads, just because Japaneese ads are so oddball and surreal.)
This is a common problem with slashdot articles. They assume that since it's a site for geeks, that all geeks have exactly the same interests and therefore will know all the lingo of every sub-interest. If it was something about TCP/IP, or about Java, or C++, then yeah, you can assume everyone will know what it is. But if it's about a specific subset of geek interest, like fans subtitling animation that only was ever released in Japan, then people might not know the lingo and a simple few words of description would be helpful. A simple parenthetical phrase would be helpful, like "fansubbers (fans who make their own english subtitled versions of movies and TV, as opposed to the subtitles being done by someone getting paid for it as part of an official release.)"
And this annoyed me even though I personally already knew what "fansub" meant.
The title of the slashdot summary claims the bill in question is the cause of the increase. I don't see how it can make that claim. The rate of spam is rising, but it has always been rising. The most the article can claim is that the bill failed to slow the rate of spam. It cannot make the claim that the bill caused the rate to go up.
how about making all the gadgets independent of the app, so that an application can be slow and unresponsive without the UI getting out of sync with your actions.
That's impossible. The purpose of the UI is to give instructions to the app. If the app is unresponsive, then fiddling with UI buttons won't have any meaningful effect, unless they are UI buttons that are external to the app's purpose (like, resizing the window frame for example, is external to the app's purpose, but clicking a link inside a brwoser is not.)
Therefore to solve this problem requires that the app be written as either seperate processes or as seperate threads of a process. Either way, it's still the app coder that has to deal with it. And even then it doesn't really solve the problem. The real problem is, "why is the app hung in the first place?"
And stop please stop trying to force it down people's throats.
How? To stop doing something, first you have to start doing it.
The error is that if a credit card number needs that much secrecy, then it should be in a masked field, like passwords are. Then it would be possible to pick whether you want to purge the history of it based on a very simple thing: If it's a password field, then purge it, else don't.
The bug is the site developer's fault. Credit cards should never be entered into an open plaintext field like that.
They want a professional solution that just works, not cutesy horseshit.
They choose Windows. Therefore your closing sentence was a lie.
Please return to planet Earth.
Thank you.
X.org was created because of xfee86's licensing. That's all.
You try explaining cookies in a paragraph or two, in a way that:
1 - everyone will understand, and
2 - doesn't end up spreading misinformation by simplifying things more than is honestly possible.
When you attempt to simplify things too far, you end up lying.
The karma score is not just some stupid kiddie munchkin number. It unlocks parts of the slashdot interface. Once upon a time, you had to have the score above 45 in order to access everything. That was a problem with the cap at 50 becuase whether or not you got locked out of certain features depended entirely on on what order the mods came in. If you start at karma 50, and then six people mod you up and then right after that six people mod you down, your final score is 44 becuase those six mods up got effectively ignored. If they do it in the other order, six down, then six up, your final score is where it started, where it should be, at 50.
Now it seems (and I can't verify this) that the number to unlock features is no longer 45. I think it's been lowered, and therefore the problem is less of a problem than it used to be.
But don't make the mistake of assuming that people complaining about unfair karma tracking are always complaining about popularity. Sometimes they are complaining about being locked out of features.
Something I take advantage of every single day is NOT "unnecessary clutter". Maybe YOU don't use remotable X, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary.
Your proposed solution, of an X layer on top of something else, might work if it is integrated VERY well, but past attempts to do that very same thing have fared poorly (X on Windows, X on Mac). Mostly because for X to feel like X, it has to be using the whole screen and be in charge of the root window, the window manager, and so on.
Any attempt to get rid of X would have to be able to do all the things X can do or people like me would never go for it. Some things the Windows interface sucks at are:
1 - Having an independant window manager, so that the application's frame is NOT under its own control. This wins you several things, including being able to move or iconify an App that is unresponsive.
2 - Remotability that is not an added afterthought. Remotability that is always there, and always usable.
3 - Picking and choosing your interface tools that help (this has a lot to do with #1 above).
4 - mouse focus how you like it.
find / -name '*.wav' -print > log.txt
find / -name '*.mp3' -print >> log.txt
find / -name '*.avi' -print >> log.txt
find / -name '*.mpg' -print >> log.txt
cat log.txt
Wow. I can be a programmer for the MPAA. I'm sooo smart.
But if you need those peripherals that you are attaching with firewire and USB, you lose the whole point of having the mini in the first place- it's no longer so mini and out of the way - now it's a collection of seperate boxes connected by seperate cables and ends up being more of a clutter than just having a larger box would have been.
Does this mean the mini is a bad idea? No. I'm just saying that the ability to expand it with external devices is not the panacea that you portray it to be. I do like the idea of having all the connections to peripherals being external, but if I do that, the mini is no longer small, no longer portable, and no longer really "mini". It's just a full computer sans case.
Well, that's not the point. The point is that the poster wasn't even trying to make any sort of comparasin like that. Not even close. And yet here comes this fanatic to allegedly "fix" this misconception that the poster never showed any evidence of even having in the first place.
There's some folks out there who annoy the crap out of me, by being so fanatacal about topic Foo that they make the assuption that if you don't mention Foo in every single point you make, that must mean you are ignorant of Foo and need to be shown the error of your ways. The post here felt like one of those.
Does the poster currently live in Guantanamo Bay? No? Didn't think so. Take your agenda (which I agree with, by the way) and save it for a relevant discussion. This isn't it.
I understand the concept you describe, but it's highly deceptive to refer to it as the compiler "verifying correctness". Its merely verifying against rules that are just as prone to incorrectness as the code itself is. It's a good thing to do, but it's not what the article claimed was being worked on.
The problem is that you are comparing things from two different eras. You are comparing UED's size to a version of vi that got compiled long after UED did. If you compare to a version of vi that was contemporary with UED, then vi would come out looking small too. These days if I compile a one line "hello world" I end up with something 4 times bigger than I would have gotten in the '80s for the same exact source code.
What do you propose for this case? "they" seems quite natural to me here, and "he or she" seems not
I propose accepting that the language is broken. The problem I have is with those who claim the usage is "correct". It's NOT correct - it's just that it's the best of several broken, incorrect ways. Not every true thought is expressable in every language.