From your spelling of the word, 'idea,' it is clear that you hail from New England.
You're worrying yourself unnecessarily. We're safe from the scalding touch of the angry fire god. We just need to worry about starvation, rather than immolation.
With the yellow pages analogy, you're addressing why Yahoo can legitimately show up on Google search results and vice versa. On topic and I agree. I think that's just a small portion of the issue, however.
With your introductory paragraph and the story of your grandmother, you're addressing the previous user comments on how unfathomable it is that people are using their web browsers without knowing how to do so properly. On this, I disagree.
You cite your grandmother never learning to drive as an example. Using that analogy, the previous posters are complaining that people who have never properly learned how to do so have started taking it upon themselves to drive to Bingo night at the VFW in droves.
It's not mindblowing that people do not understand this stuff. It is mindblowing that people who do not understand this stuff are "the overwhelming majority of internet users."
Currently, I make these modifications myself after a fresh install at every new release. I'm really just asking Canonical to make my life even easier.;-)
I think you have answered your own question. As a rule of thumb, a developer is less likely to need a head start in configuring their system than a media- or education-specific audience.
/.ers tend to have strong libertarian leanings./.ers are also vehemently and overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, which anyway you slice it still amounts to federal regulation of a free market.
Ok, I'll bite. You are correct in that this is pretty blatantly hypocritical.
I can't speak for anyone other than myself (obviously) but on this particular issue, I've weighed the possibilities as I understand them and I feel that governmental regulation is - for better or worse - more likely to produce a desirable outcome than corporate interest. For the sake of results, I'm willing to swallow my pride and endorse an option which is very clearly against my general leanings.
Similarly, I won't vote for candidates purely along party lines but on individual merits instead. Everyone has to decide for themselves whether that constitutes hypocrisy or wisdom.
Personally, I'd rather deal with the consequences of compromise than those of zealotry.
Did the protesters bring this upon themselves? Sure. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions.
This I'm not so sure about. The reason being is that there is a difference between the ones who get ugly and the ones who do not. It is difficult to distinguish in a Mob but I have seen far too many cases of cops going after everyone, or just the wrong ones who didn't 'bring it on themselves' just because they are there.
In the instance I was referring to, the people who got trampled are those who formed a chain across the access road leading out of the auditorium (which was, handily, out on a peninsula). The individuals each made their own decisions to go and sit in the road so that the attendees could not leave in order to bring attention to the issue. That is what I meant by "bringing it upon themselves."
These same people could have easily chosen to scatter, remain behind the fence or simply leave once the debate was over. They chose not to do so. I was trying to put it - I think appropriately - in a way in which I wasn't absolving anyone in particular of responsibility for what happened. The protesters (while non-violent) were very clearly being intentionally disruptive. The riot squad - while not directly inciting any of the actions of the protesters - was arguably responsible for the dramatic change in mood which had a situational effect on the protesters, rather than directly influencing their choices.
(Side note: I saw this as I was heeding my self-preservation instincts and pulling the barricades across the road a little ways behind them. No reason to let a good distraction go to waste.)
The catch is, at what point does one group become a "rampaging Mob" and does preparation for "crowd control" feed into that.
That line really hits home. I'm reminded of my one experience with a protest gone moderately bad.
2000 Presidential debate at UMass-Boston: the third-party candidates were turned away at the door and we had a huge mob of protesters arranged. The mood was light and spirits were high. The police were out in force but were generally pretty friendly and many of them were casually conversing over the hastily-erected fence. One officer got a rousing ovation when a protester dropped her sign oon the wrong side of the fence and he broke ranks to go over and hand it back. All was well.
Then the riot team arrived.
Black-clad stormtroopers with plexi-glass shields and batons do a lot to kill the mood. The change was dramatic and nearly instantaneous. To this day, I still believe that if the regular beat cops had maintained the barricade, it would never have come down. No one would have been trampled by the equestrian unit and no one would have been maced.
Did the protesters bring this upon themselves? Sure. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions.
Would they have chosen to do so if they hadn't been threatened by the presence of the riot squad? There's no way to say for sure but I personally don't believe so. The tension - as I observed it - just wasn't anywhere near to critical mass.
The rumor is that the USAF is being disbanded. As a replacement, the US Army is stockpiling flocks of common birds to be released before and/or during any future skirmish with China.
By releasing the doves at dramatically appropriate moments, they plan to ensure that all goes according to the script, ensuring victory for the good guys.
We can simply define 'electronic mail' as mail, or a message, sent electronically, as opposed to physically, where it was received by the recipient in an instant. An 'instant message' if you will.
Sort of like a phone call, in which an (audio, rather than text, but not important by your definition) message is sent electronically to the receiver in an instant? Sort of like radio, in which a message is sent electronically to the receiver(s) in an instant?... Like television's a/v message?... Like a web page's text and multimedia message?
I agree with the grandparent. The judge exceeded his or her authority (as best I, a common citizen, can comprehend it) and is promoting further sloppy legislation by endorsing it.
Peart's colleagues - Lifeson and Lee - were even more outspoken in their comments. "[The RIAA have] taken care of everything, from the words you hear to the songs you sing," decried Lee.
They're both in the image business.... Who buys Apple? Folks who want the image of a free-spirit artist who's bucking the system. It helps them to escape from their 8am -8pm office drudgery.
And here I thought that I was actually in possession of free will. Silly me. I'm productive at my job not because I'm using a tool which I'm accustomed and suited but rather I am simply getting more done because I believe I am escaping my drudgery in the process. Don't tell my boss. </sarcasm>
I think that perhaps you may have misunderstood the original joke a bit. The iPod is a small thing designed for a specific, small task. It doesn't require a great deal of time to understand and use it. It is a gadget and a toy. Hence, it is analogous to the bandana, which you only need to understand well enough to tie it around your head to cover your bald spot and occasionally throw it in the washing machine (hopefully).
The bike, on the other hand, requires a great deal more investment - both in initial financing and time spent learning to ride and maintaining it. It is more significant part of your life (please note: I'm not talking about any sort of 'brand identification as lifestyle' crap, simply referring to the amount of time spent). A macintosh owner will be similarly more invested in their computer than an iPod owner is in their semi-disposable toy.
Astute readers may note that the disparity between a $10 piece of cloth and a $20k vehicle is substantially greater than that between a $300 walkman and a $2,000 computer. This is called 'extrapolation'. Frequently, this 'extrapolation' may be used to challenge an assertion because taking said assertion to even greater extremes can demonstrate a basic flaw, inconsistency or silliness in the original assertion.
Hilarity ensues, then is cut short by having to explain it.
I recall trying to help someone track down a bug in an Ajax gallery. It was only showing up in Safari but he didn't have a mac so he asked me to help and play beta tester for a little while.
After a little while of beating out collective heads against it, it appears that there are a few issues with Ajax and Safari. Very possibly, they just couldn't get it working reliably and didn't want to support it.
On the bright side, I haven't had any problems with either Camino or Firefox.
It's news because, by posting a news article on it, kdawson has finally achieved his ultimate goal of causing the universe to implode upon itself in a news paradox.
Without news, there is no headline, without a headline, there can be no RSS feed, without the RSS feed, there can be no RSS Feed about RSS feeds and without a RSS feed about an RSS feed about RSS feeds, there can be no news. As soon as someone reads TFA, it's all over.
Don't you see? We're screwed. Kdawson has will finally win and spread chaos across the face of the entire universe. Thank God people never RTFA. I'm guessing we have another 350-ish comments to go before some moron destroys all of creation by trying to view the information firsthand and make an informed comment. Fools.
I don't want to attempt to put words in anyone's mouth but I think that the answer could also have been phrased as, "You haven't given me enough information to give you an accurate answer." You'd think the Slashdot crowd would get that.
Did you copy and rip these audio tracks to.mp3 format without express consent of the copyright holder? Was this a hybrid CD with both.mp3 and.aif files? Did you go through a filesharing network to get.mp3 files which correspond to the tracks which you purchased on disc?
I'm sure there are more questions on top of that. The questioner simply assumed that his entire story would be understood by implication, which simply won't fly with any decent lawyer (said by someone who has to live with a future one and has seen the way that law school literally changes the manner in which one considers an argument). While it's easy to be critical of the attorneys for being a bit brief (no pun intended), I greatly appreciated the chance to hear a few direct, simple answers.
Stark, simple and a bit horrifying in what they imply... Sums it up for me.
Slashdot Mirror
From your spelling of the word, 'idea,' it is clear that you hail from New England.
You're worrying yourself unnecessarily. We're safe from the scalding touch of the angry fire god. We just need to worry about starvation, rather than immolation.
I think you're mixing two analogies, slightly.
With the yellow pages analogy, you're addressing why Yahoo can legitimately show up on Google search results and vice versa. On topic and I agree. I think that's just a small portion of the issue, however.
With your introductory paragraph and the story of your grandmother, you're addressing the previous user comments on how unfathomable it is that people are using their web browsers without knowing how to do so properly. On this, I disagree.
You cite your grandmother never learning to drive as an example. Using that analogy, the previous posters are complaining that people who have never properly learned how to do so have started taking it upon themselves to drive to Bingo night at the VFW in droves.
It's not mindblowing that people do not understand this stuff. It is mindblowing that people who do not understand this stuff are "the overwhelming majority of internet users."
It comes with a d8, however. I'm just sayin'...
Also a d8 for scatter. I am so lame it hurts.
Currently, I make these modifications myself after a fresh install at every new release. I'm really just asking Canonical to make my life even easier. ;-)
I think you have answered your own question. As a rule of thumb, a developer is less likely to need a head start in configuring their system than a media- or education-specific audience.
Seurat painted each dot in order, from upper left to lower right?
Wow, the guy was even better than I thought.
/.ers tend to have strong libertarian leanings. /.ers are also vehemently and overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, which anyway you slice it still amounts to federal regulation of a free market.
Ok, I'll bite. You are correct in that this is pretty blatantly hypocritical.
I can't speak for anyone other than myself (obviously) but on this particular issue, I've weighed the possibilities as I understand them and I feel that governmental regulation is - for better or worse - more likely to produce a desirable outcome than corporate interest. For the sake of results, I'm willing to swallow my pride and endorse an option which is very clearly against my general leanings.
Similarly, I won't vote for candidates purely along party lines but on individual merits instead. Everyone has to decide for themselves whether that constitutes hypocrisy or wisdom.
Personally, I'd rather deal with the consequences of compromise than those of zealotry.
It definitely was way better than iFactor by RSI games.***
*** - iFactor by RSI games was simply a repackaged copy of Diablo I with a horribly dated label and one of those infamous hockey-puck mice.
Agreed. My personal, most-reviled offender?
Qualitech Solutions
If the horrible intranet interface isn't bad enough, you can slather it with outmoded buzzwords to make it really repulsive.
Thank God (and Chris Pederick) for User Agent Switcher.
- David Pogue on the Option key at a MacWold Boston session, many moons ago.
(This is actually from memory, so consider it paraphrasing, rather than a direct quote... in case I'm a bit off.)
In the instance I was referring to, the people who got trampled are those who formed a chain across the access road leading out of the auditorium (which was, handily, out on a peninsula). The individuals each made their own decisions to go and sit in the road so that the attendees could not leave in order to bring attention to the issue. That is what I meant by "bringing it upon themselves."
These same people could have easily chosen to scatter, remain behind the fence or simply leave once the debate was over. They chose not to do so. I was trying to put it - I think appropriately - in a way in which I wasn't absolving anyone in particular of responsibility for what happened. The protesters (while non-violent) were very clearly being intentionally disruptive. The riot squad - while not directly inciting any of the actions of the protesters - was arguably responsible for the dramatic change in mood which had a situational effect on the protesters, rather than directly influencing their choices.
(Side note: I saw this as I was heeding my self-preservation instincts and pulling the barricades across the road a little ways behind them. No reason to let a good distraction go to waste.)
The catch is, at what point does one group become a "rampaging Mob" and does preparation for "crowd control" feed into that.
That line really hits home. I'm reminded of my one experience with a protest gone moderately bad.
2000 Presidential debate at UMass-Boston: the third-party candidates were turned away at the door and we had a huge mob of protesters arranged. The mood was light and spirits were high. The police were out in force but were generally pretty friendly and many of them were casually conversing over the hastily-erected fence. One officer got a rousing ovation when a protester dropped her sign oon the wrong side of the fence and he broke ranks to go over and hand it back. All was well.
Then the riot team arrived.
Black-clad stormtroopers with plexi-glass shields and batons do a lot to kill the mood. The change was dramatic and nearly instantaneous. To this day, I still believe that if the regular beat cops had maintained the barricade, it would never have come down. No one would have been trampled by the equestrian unit and no one would have been maced.
Did the protesters bring this upon themselves? Sure. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions.
Would they have chosen to do so if they hadn't been threatened by the presence of the riot squad? There's no way to say for sure but I personally don't believe so. The tension - as I observed it - just wasn't anywhere near to critical mass.
I for one welcome our new multi-colored, combinable overlords! ... Voltron?
The rumor is that the USAF is being disbanded. As a replacement, the US Army is stockpiling flocks of common birds to be released before and/or during any future skirmish with China.
By releasing the doves at dramatically appropriate moments, they plan to ensure that all goes according to the script, ensuring victory for the good guys.
We can simply define 'electronic mail' as mail, or a message, sent electronically, as opposed to physically, where it was received by the recipient in an instant. An 'instant message' if you will.
... Like television's a/v message? ... Like a web page's text and multimedia message?
Sort of like a phone call, in which an (audio, rather than text, but not important by your definition) message is sent electronically to the receiver in an instant? Sort of like radio, in which a message is sent electronically to the receiver(s) in an instant?
I agree with the grandparent. The judge exceeded his or her authority (as best I, a common citizen, can comprehend it) and is promoting further sloppy legislation by endorsing it.
Peart's colleagues - Lifeson and Lee - were even more outspoken in their comments. "[The RIAA have] taken care of everything, from the words you hear to the songs you sing," decried Lee.
They're both in the image business. ...
Who buys Apple? Folks who want the image of a free-spirit artist who's bucking the system. It helps them to escape from their 8am -8pm office drudgery.
And here I thought that I was actually in possession of free will. Silly me. I'm productive at my job not because I'm using a tool which I'm accustomed and suited but rather I am simply getting more done because I believe I am escaping my drudgery in the process. Don't tell my boss. </sarcasm>
I think that perhaps you may have misunderstood the original joke a bit. The iPod is a small thing designed for a specific, small task. It doesn't require a great deal of time to understand and use it. It is a gadget and a toy. Hence, it is analogous to the bandana, which you only need to understand well enough to tie it around your head to cover your bald spot and occasionally throw it in the washing machine (hopefully).
The bike, on the other hand, requires a great deal more investment - both in initial financing and time spent learning to ride and maintaining it. It is more significant part of your life (please note: I'm not talking about any sort of 'brand identification as lifestyle' crap, simply referring to the amount of time spent). A macintosh owner will be similarly more invested in their computer than an iPod owner is in their semi-disposable toy.
Astute readers may note that the disparity between a $10 piece of cloth and a $20k vehicle is substantially greater than that between a $300 walkman and a $2,000 computer. This is called 'extrapolation'. Frequently, this 'extrapolation' may be used to challenge an assertion because taking said assertion to even greater extremes can demonstrate a basic flaw, inconsistency or silliness in the original assertion.
Hilarity ensues, then is cut short by having to explain it.
Harley Davidson bandana owners not nearly as loyal to brand as Harley Davidson motorcycle owners.
Film at 11.
Seriously... what did you expect?
You really think Jack Thompson has a heart?
Who needs Buster when you already have Talbot Yancy?
Maybe that was the problem. Peter and Fran were probably going to try to stick their big-eyed kids into every other scene.
I recall trying to help someone track down a bug in an Ajax gallery. It was only showing up in Safari but he didn't have a mac so he asked me to help and play beta tester for a little while.
After a little while of beating out collective heads against it, it appears that there are a few issues with Ajax and Safari. Very possibly, they just couldn't get it working reliably and didn't want to support it.
On the bright side, I haven't had any problems with either Camino or Firefox.
.... naziEs ...?
* My head a'splode! *
How is this news?
It's news because, by posting a news article on it, kdawson has finally achieved his ultimate goal of causing the universe to implode upon itself in a news paradox.
Without news, there is no headline, without a headline, there can be no RSS feed, without the RSS feed, there can be no RSS Feed about RSS feeds and without a RSS feed about an RSS feed about RSS feeds, there can be no news. As soon as someone reads TFA, it's all over.
Don't you see? We're screwed. Kdawson has will finally win and spread chaos across the face of the entire universe. Thank God people never RTFA. I'm guessing we have another 350-ish comments to go before some moron destroys all of creation by trying to view the information firsthand and make an informed comment. Fools.
I don't want to attempt to put words in anyone's mouth but I think that the answer could also have been phrased as, "You haven't given me enough information to give you an accurate answer." You'd think the Slashdot crowd would get that.
.mp3 format without express consent of the copyright holder? Was this a hybrid CD with both .mp3 and .aif files? Did you go through a filesharing network to get .mp3 files which correspond to the tracks which you purchased on disc?
Did you copy and rip these audio tracks to
I'm sure there are more questions on top of that. The questioner simply assumed that his entire story would be understood by implication, which simply won't fly with any decent lawyer (said by someone who has to live with a future one and has seen the way that law school literally changes the manner in which one considers an argument). While it's easy to be critical of the attorneys for being a bit brief (no pun intended), I greatly appreciated the chance to hear a few direct, simple answers.
Stark, simple and a bit horrifying in what they imply... Sums it up for me.