That's a bug in the way Windows works in general, not just in the app. Basically, that option is a window manager decision, and Windows doesn't use a window manager. Instead each app is in charge of it's own window frame's behaviour (including focus and fronting) and only gets the default behavior (or the TweakUI behavior) if it was written to CHOOSE to use the standard library calls Windows provides to handle it. A program can be written to ignore those standard calls and do things its own way, which is a big mistake, I think.
Allow users to pick the greyed out menu opion anyway, and then have it open up a help window with a one or two sentence explanation of why they cant use the option. - or have a tooltip hover there when the mouse cursor is hanging over the grey option. Have it be a standardized format message box that programmers can set with one proprety in the gui object, i.e:
To some extent this is the fault of the app. All apps open up onto the active screen when they first open their outermost window frame (the thingy the window manager controls). An app could be written to do what you are talking about simply by opening its outermost frame as early as possible in the run, then doing the rest of it's initialization afterward, instead of the other way around. The reason they don't do this is because they consider it ugly to have a blank window frame sitting there for several seconds unupdated.
But it doesn't do what the interface teaches you the trash icon does - delete things. Drag a folder there - deletes it. Drag a file there - deletes it. Drage a disk there - doesn't delete it. What about the user who was doing what the interface taught him to do - wipe things by using the trash - maybe he wanted to wipe the disk?
The problem with software-only disk ejects is that they are written with the (false) assumption that there can never be a situation in which the user knows better than the software whether it is a good idea to get the disk back out. Since software has bugs, and sometimes gets stuck, this is a very false assumption. Sometimes if a disk has 30 files on it, I want the damn thing back even when I know one of the files is still open and will be corrupted. It might not matter to me. It might just be a temp file - the OS doesn't know its purpose. That's MY decision, not the OS's decision. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "idiot-proof" interfaces are simultaneously "expert-proof" interfaces, which is what makes them so annoying.
To talk of a thing existing or not, you have to finish your definition of it. If the only way to say god might exist is to use an unfinished definition, then you aren't really saying anything other than "something that I haven't told you what it is yet might exist" - which is a totally meaningless statement. I could define my car to be god, and TA-DA! God exists, and I drove him to work today and parked him in a parking ramp. It really sucks that I have to pay $8 to get my god back at the end of the day like that, but what are you going to do, eh? Too many people each own their own god in this town and it's really congested downtown with all the gods all over the place. Perhaps I should look into a public form of shared God instead.
If the only way to support a god potentially existing is to leave the definition unfinished, then it's not at all signifigant to state that you should keep an open mind that this god might exist.
So far they've proven in 100% of tests to be useless.
Still not a true statement. What has been proven is that we don't know how to make use of them. 400 years ago, they would have said the same thing about bread mould, before the invention of pennicillin.
1 - A question that contains undefined terms is not the same as a question which contains defined terms that are subjective.
2 - It doesn't matter whether Sagan is right or not. What matters is that he's the author who wrote the novel Contact and they insulted him by writing an ending to the movie with a message directly opposite of the one he gave while still alive. It's a travesty because it's an insult to the author of the work, much like if Peter Jackson had decided to have Sauron win the war of the ring in the movie version of JRR Tolkein's work.
3 - What about Einstien?
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
When Einstien spoke of god, it was very metephorical, much like when someone refers to a hurricaine as an "act of God".
Determine why private research funds (even at some universities) are not being spent on stem cell research.
Private research wants immediate results and always goes after the low-lying fruits. Embronic stem cell research is still far-flung future stuff. There's your explanation.
And to further the anology, saying you don't need embryonic stem cell research because you have adult stem cell research is like claiming nobody should ever learn machine language since we have high level languages (which ignores that it is necessary for at least SOME people to know machine language because they work at a very low-level. I fully expect someone designing a CPU to know machine language, for example.)
If industry were in charge of everything, scientific research would only be performed if there was a chance that it would lead to something profitable
Actually, that wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that we can't predict what will be profitable that far in advance. The problem is that only a subset of "stuff that's interesting to know" eventually becomes "stuff that is useful" (And, stuff that is useful == stuff that can make a profit). So the only way to obtain "stuff that is useful" is to try pretty much everything you can and see what pans out. That's not an investment companies like to make. So it makes a lot of sense for this kind of research to be carried out in public with public funds. I just wish people wouldn't harp on the failures so much. It shows ignorance of the scientific process. The failures are a guaranteed side effect of the process, since you can't have 100% success unless you already know what you're looking for.
True. Clinton didn't fund this research for exactly the same reason Thomas Jefferson didn't put up the prize money to fund the transcontinental railroad.
It's hard to separate because it's been going on for so long now. Religions mirror the culture in which they were formed and altered over the years. So too do ethics. Thus the ethics of a people, and the religion of a people, tend to match up one to one. I tend to blame the culture, not the religion, but I also *credit* the culture, not the religion. That means religion doesn't get the blame for the inquisition, but religion doesn't get the credit for abolitionist movements in the US, even though it was part of the rhetoric of both. People tend to decide right and wrong first, and then try to force their religion to fit that. That's how you can have both Christian abolitionists and Christian slavers, and how you can have both Muslim's saying their religion is all about peace, and Muslims who fly passenger airplanes into buildings.
People decide ethics first, and then force their religion to fit what they've already decided. I'd feel more comfortable without that extra unneccesary step, so at least a person's rationale is laid bare for all to see, without masking it by religion. So, I too would trust an atheist more than a religious person, but not because atheists are inherently more ethical - but because they are inherently more open about our motivations. If an atheist is evil, I'm more likely to be able to detect it openly.
Whether you love someone or not is a subjective issue, like asking whether or not FDR was a good president. God existing or not is an objective issue, like asking whether or not FDR used a wheelchair.
Thus the analogy fails. The inability to prove you love someone is merely a side effect of the fact that it's subjective, and ALL subjective things are inherently unprovable (because it is possible for mutually exclusive positions to be simultaneously correct if it is subjective). It is not possible for god to both exist and not exist, so that is NOT a subjective issue. There IS only one right answer, but we just don't know what it is. That is a completely different situation.
Given the attitudes of Carl Sagan as expressed in his final work, The Demon-Haunted World> , it's a great travesty how they ended up writing that ending to the movie Contact. It expresses a stance in direct contradiction to what Sagan would have expressed.
Actually, no, the exact same argument was used - the fear was that people would conveniently find new excuses to create corpses (kill people who would otherwise not have died) for research - "Hey this guy's poor and unimportant, and he just so happens to have exactly the sort of sickness I'm trying to study. Let's cut him open and learn what we can - he's not going to have a very productive life from here on anyway, what with this sickness and all..." It's the same argument that abortions would increase if people used the embryos for reasearch. And it's just as nonsensical today.
Why on earth would my repeated suggestion that you stop talking about something as if you're an expert w/o even making the effort to obtain a contemporary viewpoint mean that I am saying that I lied?
I apologize for making the false assumption that you are a competent enough reader of English to know what the fuck the word "IF" actually means. I didn't say you lied. I said that if you aren't lying about what was said in those forums, then my argument stands. The only way it would make sense for me to bother reading the forums would be if I had a reason to doubt your claims about what was said there.
No. So what? I'm not a valve customer. Are you admitting that you lied when repeating what they said here? It not, then everything I said stands. If YOU weren't lying about what they said, then what they said is 100% impossible because they were claiming an unprovable thing. At most, they can claim that they don't KNOW of any legit customers they cut off.
When someone says they performed an action that is impossible within the bounds of logic, I don't need to see every detail of how they did it to know they can't be telling the truth. I'll believe their claim the day after I see someone solve the halting problem, or sucessfully divide by zero. It's the same class of impossible.
There is one room with a big blue square thing you could "search" by pushing forward. It was distincively different from the rest of the searchable furniture in two ways:
1 - It says "Nothing Here" immediately without waiting.
2 - It doesn't dissappear off the screen when it says "Nothing Here".
When you find that room with that odd bit of furniture, make a mental note of where it is. That's the end of the game exit. Once you have all 9 password letters, then you go 'search' that weire unsearchable item, and that ends the game.
(The manual for the game mentioned this, so it's not like it was some super secret thing they were trying to hide.)
It might work as a release for the "lesser" little portable devices, like palmpilots or Gameboy Advances. 2-D style games still enjoy some life in that setting.
The phrase "have read the GPL" and the phrase "have read the contracts and licenses that your company is bound by" are not identical. In the case of a company that has chosen not to ever use GPL software out of an unfounded fear of what it means, they can have read all the contracts and licneses they are bound by, and the GPL just isn't one of them.
Don't assume ignorance when disagreement is a possible explanation. That's arrogant. The set of techniques Valve is telling you about is a subset of the set of techniques they are actually using, by their own admission. The fact remains that in ANY situation, making a claim that you have generated no false positives is not a justifiable claim. It is identical to claiming that your code has zero bugs just becuase you squashed all the known ones on your list.
I have no doubts that Valve has a techcnique that they BELIEVE will identify only cheaters, just like when a programmer claims to have gotten rid of the last bug, he probably does believe it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a bug in the way Windows works in general, not just in the app. Basically, that option is a window manager decision, and Windows doesn't use a window manager. Instead each app is in charge of it's own window frame's behaviour (including focus and fronting) and only gets the default behavior (or the TweakUI behavior) if it was written to CHOOSE to use the standard library calls Windows provides to handle it. A program can be written to ignore those standard calls and do things its own way, which is a big mistake, I think.
To some extent this is the fault of the app. All apps open up onto the active screen when they first open their outermost window frame (the thingy the window manager controls). An app could be written to do what you are talking about simply by opening its outermost frame as early as possible in the run, then doing the rest of it's initialization afterward, instead of the other way around. The reason they don't do this is because they consider it ugly to have a blank window frame sitting there for several seconds unupdated.
No. The article is not exclusively about Macs.
But it doesn't do what the interface teaches you the trash icon does - delete things. Drag a folder there - deletes it. Drag a file there - deletes it. Drage a disk there - doesn't delete it. What about the user who was doing what the interface taught him to do - wipe things by using the trash - maybe he wanted to wipe the disk?
The problem with software-only disk ejects is that they are written with the (false) assumption that there can never be a situation in which the user knows better than the software whether it is a good idea to get the disk back out. Since software has bugs, and sometimes gets stuck, this is a very false assumption. Sometimes if a disk has 30 files on it, I want the damn thing back even when I know one of the files is still open and will be corrupted. It might not matter to me. It might just be a temp file - the OS doesn't know its purpose. That's MY decision, not the OS's decision. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "idiot-proof" interfaces are simultaneously "expert-proof" interfaces, which is what makes them so annoying.
To talk of a thing existing or not, you have to finish your definition of it. If the only way to say god might exist is to use an unfinished definition, then you aren't really saying anything other than "something that I haven't told you what it is yet might exist" - which is a totally meaningless statement. I could define my car to be god, and TA-DA! God exists, and I drove him to work today and parked him in a parking ramp. It really sucks that I have to pay $8 to get my god back at the end of the day like that, but what are you going to do, eh? Too many people each own their own god in this town and it's really congested downtown with all the gods all over the place. Perhaps I should look into a public form of shared God instead.
If the only way to support a god potentially existing is to leave the definition unfinished, then it's not at all signifigant to state that you should keep an open mind that this god might exist.
So far they've proven in 100% of tests to be useless.
Still not a true statement. What has been proven is that we don't know how to make use of them. 400 years ago, they would have said the same thing about bread mould, before the invention of pennicillin.
faithfull agnotistic
Parse error.
2 - It doesn't matter whether Sagan is right or not. What matters is that he's the author who wrote the novel Contact and they insulted him by writing an ending to the movie with a message directly opposite of the one he gave while still alive. It's a travesty because it's an insult to the author of the work, much like if Peter Jackson had decided to have Sauron win the war of the ring in the movie version of JRR Tolkein's work.
3 - What about Einstien?
Determine why private research funds (even at some universities) are not being spent on stem cell research.
Private research wants immediate results and always goes after the low-lying fruits. Embronic stem cell research is still far-flung future stuff. There's your explanation.
And to further the anology, saying you don't need embryonic stem cell research because you have adult stem cell research is like claiming nobody should ever learn machine language since we have high level languages (which ignores that it is necessary for at least SOME people to know machine language because they work at a very low-level. I fully expect someone designing a CPU to know machine language, for example.)
Anything I missed?
How about the fact that it is 100% impossible to prove something is totally useless, which is what you claimed has occured with embryonic stem cells?
If industry were in charge of everything, scientific research would only be performed if there was a chance that it would lead to something profitable
Actually, that wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that we can't predict what will be profitable that far in advance. The problem is that only a subset of "stuff that's interesting to know" eventually becomes "stuff that is useful" (And, stuff that is useful == stuff that can make a profit). So the only way to obtain "stuff that is useful" is to try pretty much everything you can and see what pans out. That's not an investment companies like to make. So it makes a lot of sense for this kind of research to be carried out in public with public funds. I just wish people wouldn't harp on the failures so much. It shows ignorance of the scientific process. The failures are a guaranteed side effect of the process, since you can't have 100% success unless you already know what you're looking for.
True. Clinton didn't fund this research for exactly the same reason Thomas Jefferson didn't put up the prize money to fund the transcontinental railroad.
It's hard to separate because it's been going on for so long now. Religions mirror the culture in which they were formed and altered over the years. So too do ethics. Thus the ethics of a people, and the religion of a people, tend to match up one to one. I tend to blame the culture, not the religion, but I also *credit* the culture, not the religion. That means religion doesn't get the blame for the inquisition, but religion doesn't get the credit for abolitionist movements in the US, even though it was part of the rhetoric of both. People tend to decide right and wrong first, and then try to force their religion to fit that. That's how you can have both Christian abolitionists and Christian slavers, and how you can have both Muslim's saying their religion is all about peace, and Muslims who fly passenger airplanes into buildings.
People decide ethics first, and then force their religion to fit what they've already decided. I'd feel more comfortable without that extra unneccesary step, so at least a person's rationale is laid bare for all to see, without masking it by religion. So, I too would trust an atheist more than a religious person, but not because atheists are inherently more ethical - but because they are inherently more open about our motivations. If an atheist is evil, I'm more likely to be able to detect it openly.
Do you love your parents?
Prove it.
Whether you love someone or not is a subjective issue, like asking whether or not FDR was a good president.
God existing or not is an objective issue, like asking whether or not
FDR used a wheelchair.
Thus the analogy fails. The inability to prove you love someone is merely a side effect of the fact that it's subjective, and ALL subjective things are inherently unprovable (because it is possible for mutually exclusive positions to be simultaneously correct if it is subjective). It is not possible for god to both exist and not exist, so that is NOT a subjective issue. There IS only one right answer, but we just don't know what it is. That is a completely different situation.
Given the attitudes of Carl Sagan as expressed in his final work, The Demon-Haunted World> , it's a great travesty how they ended up writing that ending to the movie Contact. It expresses a stance in direct contradiction to what Sagan would have expressed.
Actually, no, the exact same argument was used - the fear was that people would conveniently find new excuses to create corpses (kill people who would otherwise not have died) for research - "Hey this guy's poor and unimportant, and he just so happens to have exactly the sort of sickness I'm trying to study. Let's cut him open and learn what we can - he's not going to have a very productive life from here on anyway, what with this sickness and all..." It's the same argument that abortions would increase if people used the embryos for reasearch. And it's just as nonsensical today.
Why on earth would my repeated suggestion that you stop talking about something as if you're an expert w/o even making the effort to obtain a contemporary viewpoint mean that I am saying that I lied?
I apologize for making the false assumption that you are a competent enough reader of English to know what the fuck the word "IF" actually means. I didn't say you lied. I said that if you aren't lying about what was said in those forums, then my argument stands. The only way it would make sense for me to bother reading the forums would be if I had a reason to doubt your claims about what was said there.
The rest of your post is based on this stupidity.
Did you visit the valve forums
No. So what? I'm not a valve customer. Are you admitting that you lied when repeating what they said here? It not, then everything I said stands. If YOU weren't lying about what they said, then what they said is 100% impossible because they were claiming an unprovable thing. At most, they can claim that they don't KNOW of any legit customers they cut off.
When someone says they performed an action that is impossible within the bounds of logic, I don't need to see every detail of how they did it to know they can't be telling the truth. I'll believe their claim the day after I see someone solve the halting problem, or sucessfully divide by zero. It's the same class of impossible.
There is one room with a big blue square thing you could "search" by pushing forward. It was distincively different from the rest of the searchable furniture in two ways:
1 - It says "Nothing Here" immediately without waiting.
2 - It doesn't dissappear off the screen when it says "Nothing Here".
When you find that room with that odd bit of furniture, make a mental note of where it is. That's the end of the game exit. Once you have all 9 password letters, then you go 'search' that weire unsearchable item, and that ends the game.
(The manual for the game mentioned this, so it's not like it was some super secret thing they were trying to hide.)
It might work as a release for the "lesser" little portable devices, like palmpilots or Gameboy Advances. 2-D style games still enjoy some life in that setting.
The phrase "have read the GPL" and the phrase "have read the contracts and licenses that your company is bound by" are not identical. In the case of a company that has chosen not to ever use GPL software out of an unfounded fear of what it means, they can have read all the contracts and licneses they are bound by, and the GPL just isn't one of them.
If you bothered to visit the Valve forums
Don't assume ignorance when disagreement is a possible explanation. That's arrogant. The set of techniques Valve is telling you about is a subset of the set of techniques they are actually using, by their own admission. The fact remains that in ANY situation, making a claim that you have generated no false positives is not a justifiable claim. It is identical to claiming that your code has zero bugs just becuase you squashed all the known ones on your list.
I have no doubts that Valve has a techcnique that they BELIEVE will identify only cheaters, just like when a programmer claims to have gotten rid of the last bug, he probably does believe it.
Your posts here are an example. If you don't see that already, then I don't think I could ever convince you of it.