You're right, of course. New technology can unlock new options. But merely better technology can't. It can make them more viable, but they are always there. Katamari, from what I know - I've never actually played it, but it's one of the reasons I'm going to have to get a PS2/3 at some point - could easily have been implemented on the Playstation. Perhaps not quite as well, but just as innovatively. So could Smash Bros. Melee, Tales of Symphonia, Beyond Good & Evil, Halo, ad nauseum.
So what new thing will be introduced on a hardware level this time around? Because if there isn't anything, then there won't be anything that can't already be done.
I use Dvorak with a QWERTY layout as well. I originally switched the keys, but then my friend came round. He couldn't type in Dvorak, and he couldn't touch-type QWERTY, so we switched the keys back and changed the keymap. It really is the best way to learn to touch-type.
However, I find that I still look at the keys sometimes. I just equate a particular symbol with a different key. I don't know whether I'd be able to do that with no markings, but I'd get used to it.
Now, has anybody else noticed that the diagram and picture look different? The picture has a larger backspace key, but what would be enter is split into two, presumably backspace and enter. Which I suppose is a better way of doing it than squeezing backspace in the home row, like I'd have expected would be done, since it gives both enter (on the home row) and backspace a large area.
Now if only it came in a 105-key variety (in which £ goes above 3, goes above ` and # and ~ get their own key), and if they could do that in a way which didn't make me stretch over \ to get left shift or hit # when I go for backspace or enter, I might consider it. Customising the springiness would be even better.
There are photos on the cards to stop that happening.
As a Brit, I have just one question. If, for a meal costing £1.15 (about $2.30), you get 40 points, and if an Ipod costs 4000 points, that means you can get an IPod within half a year taking holidays and whatnot into account, or an Xbox (3,000 points) in less. So that's about one IPod for everybody in the school, on average. And next year, I'll be expected to pay for this rather than, say, buying myself an IPod. Why? I don't even care what these kids are eating.
Well, yes - if people want you to continue doing what you are doing, then they will show up in large numbers and you will be payed large sums of money. That is not a symptom of copyright (not that I'm an anthropologist to know what the hell I'm talking about (are you?), but it's not like you can copyright a home run), and nor is it a bad thing.
If informative news is not what people want, it's not what they will watch, copyright or no. If educational movies are not what people want, they aren't what will be watched. You just sound like you're trying to tell society what's wrong with it, and blaming copyright for it.
If teachers aren't getting payed enough, then not enough people want them to continue. That's the problem, if there is one, not copyright. The solution is to get people interested in education, probably by getting better teachers. If somebody could make me enjoy an IT lesson, I'd be happy, but as it is, I'm stuck doing the exact same thing as I found painfully easy last year on a program that everybody pretends to understand but which nobody can fix when it starts opening every file on their userspace whenever it gets loaded with a bunch of brain-dead morons whom I hate with a passion because they aren't like me. In short, I'm not learning anything - not IT (I was told to use a nested IF when a simple OR would reduce typing and probability of mistakes), not tolerance and not that Microsoft Excel is stable - and my IT teacher is not doing her job. And it's not even her fault. When I said I wasn't worried about viruses (which is true, even though I should be) because I run Linux she told me that I was still susceptible and when I pointed out that there was a better algorithm she noticed it - we were working from hand-outs. She wasn't even surprised when my computer started telling me "Self-desturck [sic] imminent". It's just that 'education' is now teaching people things rather than skills. Taking that worksheet we were doing, it didn't take the trouble to explain what was going on so that we'd be able to apply what we learned to other situations, it was just telling us to click here, type this and if it doesn't look right start over until it does. Nobody learns anything from that, they just lose confidence in their ability to understand the world.
On the other hand, celebrities are people that kids look up to. They tell them to follow their dreams, however corny that is, and not to give up. That's the sort of thing that prevents suicide. Kids who hate school form bands and learn from the experience. Now you tell me who does society the greater good - the people who depress us, or those who cheer us up?
(If I sound bitter, I probably am. I'm also probably just trying to put off my homework.)
And it's slower than IE for some people, requires a GUI and doesn't have support for some things that IE does, such as Ruby text. IIRC, It's larger than Opera and doesn't pass the Acid2 test. The RAM usage is too much for some people (I speak as one who used to have only 70 megs) and about:config is voodoo. It may be the only browser you want, but you do not represent everybody.
Now, if you were talking Gecko, you'd have more of a case. But still not much of one. Even if it fully supported all the standards (it doesn't) it would not be the be-all and end-all, because it would be bloated by then. There's always room for some tradeoffs - pixel-perfect rendering or quicker calculations? That's what competition is for in open source: not making stuff better, but adding a new definition of the term 'better'. All the current engines have advantages over the others.
I was practically in love with Collette while playing that game. I suffered withdrawal symptoms at school. The best scene for me was the one after the third seal.
Other notables are Skies of Arcadia (after the Crescent Isle base gets destroyed), Beyond Good and Evil (with all the protestors) and FFIII's Opera scene.
What's somebody who considers the constitution bloated?
Amendments won't solve anything. They don't prevent prejudice, which is the problem. The solution is to make discrimination 100% legal, and boycott anybody who practices it. If you don't care enough to do that, you get no sympathy from me. It may hurt, but with prejudice in the open, it can be combatted.
Well, in that particular example, why are they distributing software made to link with something they developed in-house? It shouldn't be hard to show that it was intended to link with the GPL version.
More generally, if there are two versions, then they might or might not have a case. If the non-GPL one is largely unheard of, or no longer in active development they might be expected to statically link it - the biggest advantage of dynamic linking is security fixes, but if those aren't likely, there's less point. If it's widely used and still developed, then a note warning people not to use it if they have the GPL version might anull them of responsibility, provided it was obvious. If it's the GPL version that almost nobody uses, then they may be able to get away with it freely.
Although I guess that still applies back to fonts if you were intending the GPL coy to be used. Rats. You might be able to argue that the font could have been replaced with any other existing font, making the choice meaningless, but that seems more like an argument based on reason than law, and those don't have an impressive track record. I guess the other solution would be to change the font if you get a C&D, but that relies on using the font in a non-GPL work being a violation rather than the font making the work GPL by default. It would be illegal, but I doubt there's much that could be done. My expectations would be the former, especially if the document was explicitly licensed under something else, but again, the Law moves in mysterious ways.
The way I see it, unless you hard-code the font in, it can't have any affect. You aren't saying "use this font", you're saying "use a font named this".
Say two fonts come out with the same name, one GPL and one public domain. You might only know about the PD one, and use it in your document. The GPL obviously has no power, and nor can it do so when you give it to somebody who has only the GPL font. The only thing the document knows about the font is the name, which cannot be GPL'd.
It goes without saying that I am very much a totally real lawyer of the non-greedy-bastard vareity.
My problem with that is that it's much easier to add a line to the beginning when the brace isn't followed by code. In Vim for instance, if the brace is separate you can just move to the first line and press O. If the brace is on the first line, you need |xO{ (assuming you use tabs rather than spaces - if not the x would have to be r<space> ), which is not only more keypresses but also harder to formulate. In a point-and-type editor, you could click anywhere on the brace line and press enter rather than having to put it at the beginning.
Checking braces with K&R is a bit of a problem, but most good editors won't make it too hard. And indents help with blocks anyway. Still, this is why everybody should use Lisp - the bracket goes before the construct, so you don't need an extra line for it.
A lot of that really doesn't sound too great to me. I don't want Link to speak, and I don't just mean voice acting. I don't want to have to fish. I don't want hugely complex tables of what combines to make what. I don't want to have to pick a horse as if it were some sort of racing sim. I don't want a hugely complex storyline.
Resoning? Zelda games are iconic. Link is an iconic character. It's good versus evil, right versus wrong. Link fights for the same reason we do, and that's whatever we choose to be fighting for, but it's invariably a good thing. As soon as we get told what Link's motivation is, that goes. If he speaks, we can't help making assumptions which may go completely against our ideas. That will ruin the experience. Games like that have their place - I loved Tales of Symphonia, for instance. But it's not Zelda. Fishing was fun. But it's not the sort of thing I'd want to be forced into doing. I'd waste time on it, sure, but I wouldn't want to be doing it for any other reason. Perhaps because it could be incredibly frustrating, as well. That would only increase with the introduction of several different kinds of rod, bait, etc. Upgrading, sure, but not mix and match. And again, Link as an angler would make him less malleable. Complexity is not a good thing in an iconic game. It ruins the effect. It brings you out of a fantasy. You don't want to have to remember too much. Being able to combine equipment will make you have to remember things. You'd have to try loads of different combinations. Owning a stable would just be ugh. It would require active maintenance and draw you away from th game itesf. The only way it would work is if you owned it in name only, like the Cabana in Wind Waker. But then what would be the point? Being able to choose between several horses might not be so bad, as long as it's a simple comparison, like the swords in OoT. And as long as you don't ever get more than one at a time, or within a short span. Not being able to try them out properly would spoil it.
I think that explains all of them, at least in a roundabout way. I never was very good at expressing myself.
I don't think flying, becoming a wolf or having animals fight for you would work, either. I'm not entirely sure why, though.
Whtever Nintendo makes, I'm sure it will be great. I just don't think IGN's ideas are the same as Ninty's.
Call me crazy, but I'd be more incline to trust somebody with my life than with $20. As an example, compare the number of times you've been murdered against the number of times you've been robbed or scammed.
Unfortunately, it's analogue (unless you've added logic gates). It isn't possible to install something on an analogue computer. Doing something which is impossible violates natural laws, and is therefore illegal.
Right now all Metafor is trying to do is place the framework for a program. You get that, and implement the low level stuff yourself. It's really just brainstorming.
However, maybe I'm just optimistic, but it seems to me that the only problem with translating English, or any other natural language, into a program is vocabulary. Grammar is easy to keep simple. Defining user input would be the hardest, because it requires faily complex grammar, but depending on the application, they could probably use it themselves.
'Search the internet for the phrase "Slashdot"' would be fairly simple. The only words it would need to know are search, internet and term. Articals such as 'the' and 'a' can usually be removed with no problems, and as long as you keep to the form 'verb object indirect object' the for would be redundant as well. 'Phrase' would make it clear that what follows is a literal string. So it would become 'search internet "Slashdot"'. That wouldn't be hard to understand. Implement search as a function which looks at its first argument to determine what to search ('internet' probably meaning 'Google') and the second argument as what to search for. Better yet, implement 'internet' as a noun, including information on how one searches it, advertises on it, connects to it, etc. If necessary, you could use grammatical aids to help such as hypenating multiple words, eg 'look-up the phrase "narcissism" in an online-dictionary'. It would become 'look-up "narcissism" online-dictionary', which would be simple. No trivial task, but it sounds at least vaguely plausible to me.
Or alternatively, they did it to uphold their monopoly.
That's what the Wikipedia article suggests anyway, and I find it much more believable if the other things mentioned are true: orchestrating shortages, antitrust and only starting to put quality over quantity because they didn't have enough resources to manufacture lots of games.
if you keep making elementary mistakes like this, people who can write and speak English properly will think that you are a drooling idiot and dismiss your argument as worthless. This is true, but not something to be proud of. Dyslexic people have problems with spelling, that doesn't mean they're stupid or that their arguments should be ignored. You might as well say that looks matter because people judge on them. The fact that people make arbitrary assumptions does not mean the things they base those assumptions on are important.
I agree that you should use the correct form, but that's because phonetic spelling is based on an incorrect assumption: that people read phonetically. I can't speak for anybody else, but I for one don't. I can't explain how I do read, but it certainly isn't by squinting at the word and sounding it out. Not to mention that 'ne1' would be pronounced 'nee wun' (or 'neh wun'), not 'enn ee wun'. Therefore, proper spelling is easier for me to read, and doesn't need to be as interesting for me to consider it worth my while to read.
Trivial it may be, but about a year ago I was using a crappy machine with 70 odd megs of RAM. I did try compiling stuff from source. Honest. I decided that I didn't like it after the Gimp. I'm lucky (and so was my late computer) that I didn't run into any dependency issues. Anybody who wants to force me to build stuff from source if I can't get it from my distro gets the finger. Nowadays I mainly build stuff from source anyway, but that's my decision and I can easily reverse it out of spite.
If people screw their machines up, it's their problem. If you get caught up reinstalling for them, you can easily get out of it by telling them no. Banning rope won't prevent suicide, it'll just piss off the rock climbers. On the other hand, people won't (often) commit suicide if they think death is worse than life, so if you refuse to help dead people, they might learn and stop killing themselves. Those that don't will eventually give up and use a hammer, thus stopping them from infecting others. Natural selection, however bad my analagies might be.
I'd like to be able to enable these features at compile-time. Build Gecko, and pass options specifying that you want Firefox, Chatzilla and Composer, but not Thunderbird.
It should also be noted that the two statements are for different purposes. The dog one was informative, if not very much so. Facts and opinions do not have to apply to more than a single entitiy, therefore changing the entity in question is meaningless. The one you quoted was stating a rule: "Google can do what it likes". Rules do have to apply to more than a single entity, if not necessarily at the same time, so replacing an entity with any other entity in the same position has no effect on how the objective (in terms of the two entities) viewer reacts.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, of course. New technology can unlock new options. But merely better technology can't. It can make them more viable, but they are always there. Katamari, from what I know - I've never actually played it, but it's one of the reasons I'm going to have to get a PS2/3 at some point - could easily have been implemented on the Playstation. Perhaps not quite as well, but just as innovatively. So could Smash Bros. Melee, Tales of Symphonia, Beyond Good & Evil, Halo, ad nauseum.
So what new thing will be introduced on a hardware level this time around? Because if there isn't anything, then there won't be anything that can't already be done.
I use Dvorak with a QWERTY layout as well. I originally switched the keys, but then my friend came round. He couldn't type in Dvorak, and he couldn't touch-type QWERTY, so we switched the keys back and changed the keymap. It really is the best way to learn to touch-type.
However, I find that I still look at the keys sometimes. I just equate a particular symbol with a different key. I don't know whether I'd be able to do that with no markings, but I'd get used to it.
Now, has anybody else noticed that the diagram and picture look different? The picture has a larger backspace key, but what would be enter is split into two, presumably backspace and enter. Which I suppose is a better way of doing it than squeezing backspace in the home row, like I'd have expected would be done, since it gives both enter (on the home row) and backspace a large area.
Now if only it came in a 105-key variety (in which £ goes above 3, goes above ` and # and ~ get their own key), and if they could do that in a way which didn't make me stretch over \ to get left shift or hit # when I go for backspace or enter, I might consider it. Customising the springiness would be even better.
There are photos on the cards to stop that happening.
As a Brit, I have just one question. If, for a meal costing £1.15 (about $2.30), you get 40 points, and if an Ipod costs 4000 points, that means you can get an IPod within half a year taking holidays and whatnot into account, or an Xbox (3,000 points) in less. So that's about one IPod for everybody in the school, on average. And next year, I'll be expected to pay for this rather than, say, buying myself an IPod. Why? I don't even care what these kids are eating.
Well, yes - if people want you to continue doing what you are doing, then they will show up in large numbers and you will be payed large sums of money. That is not a symptom of copyright (not that I'm an anthropologist to know what the hell I'm talking about (are you?), but it's not like you can copyright a home run), and nor is it a bad thing.
If informative news is not what people want, it's not what they will watch, copyright or no. If educational movies are not what people want, they aren't what will be watched. You just sound like you're trying to tell society what's wrong with it, and blaming copyright for it.
If teachers aren't getting payed enough, then not enough people want them to continue. That's the problem, if there is one, not copyright. The solution is to get people interested in education, probably by getting better teachers. If somebody could make me enjoy an IT lesson, I'd be happy, but as it is, I'm stuck doing the exact same thing as I found painfully easy last year on a program that everybody pretends to understand but which nobody can fix when it starts opening every file on their userspace whenever it gets loaded with a bunch of brain-dead morons whom I hate with a passion because they aren't like me. In short, I'm not learning anything - not IT (I was told to use a nested IF when a simple OR would reduce typing and probability of mistakes), not tolerance and not that Microsoft Excel is stable - and my IT teacher is not doing her job. And it's not even her fault. When I said I wasn't worried about viruses (which is true, even though I should be) because I run Linux she told me that I was still susceptible and when I pointed out that there was a better algorithm she noticed it - we were working from hand-outs. She wasn't even surprised when my computer started telling me "Self-desturck [sic] imminent". It's just that 'education' is now teaching people things rather than skills. Taking that worksheet we were doing, it didn't take the trouble to explain what was going on so that we'd be able to apply what we learned to other situations, it was just telling us to click here, type this and if it doesn't look right start over until it does. Nobody learns anything from that, they just lose confidence in their ability to understand the world.
On the other hand, celebrities are people that kids look up to. They tell them to follow their dreams, however corny that is, and not to give up. That's the sort of thing that prevents suicide. Kids who hate school form bands and learn from the experience. Now you tell me who does society the greater good - the people who depress us, or those who cheer us up?
(If I sound bitter, I probably am. I'm also probably just trying to put off my homework.)
You're thinking of MM. The fairy village is where you start out in OoT.
And neither game had a jump button, except the flowers thing and in combat.
And it's slower than IE for some people, requires a GUI and doesn't have support for some things that IE does, such as Ruby text. IIRC, It's larger than Opera and doesn't pass the Acid2 test. The RAM usage is too much for some people (I speak as one who used to have only 70 megs) and about:config is voodoo. It may be the only browser you want, but you do not represent everybody.
Now, if you were talking Gecko, you'd have more of a case. But still not much of one. Even if it fully supported all the standards (it doesn't) it would not be the be-all and end-all, because it would be bloated by then. There's always room for some tradeoffs - pixel-perfect rendering or quicker calculations? That's what competition is for in open source: not making stuff better, but adding a new definition of the term 'better'. All the current engines have advantages over the others.
I was practically in love with Collette while playing that game. I suffered withdrawal symptoms at school. The best scene for me was the one after the third seal.
Other notables are Skies of Arcadia (after the Crescent Isle base gets destroyed), Beyond Good and Evil (with all the protestors) and FFIII's Opera scene.
Every time I start Word at school, it has a random message inserted.
After getting that to work, I had to cut off my fingers for using VB.
What's somebody who considers the constitution bloated?
Amendments won't solve anything. They don't prevent prejudice, which is the problem. The solution is to make discrimination 100% legal, and boycott anybody who practices it. If you don't care enough to do that, you get no sympathy from me. It may hurt, but with prejudice in the open, it can be combatted.
Well, in that particular example, why are they distributing software made to link with something they developed in-house? It shouldn't be hard to show that it was intended to link with the GPL version.
More generally, if there are two versions, then they might or might not have a case. If the non-GPL one is largely unheard of, or no longer in active development they might be expected to statically link it - the biggest advantage of dynamic linking is security fixes, but if those aren't likely, there's less point. If it's widely used and still developed, then a note warning people not to use it if they have the GPL version might anull them of responsibility, provided it was obvious. If it's the GPL version that almost nobody uses, then they may be able to get away with it freely.
Although I guess that still applies back to fonts if you were intending the GPL coy to be used. Rats. You might be able to argue that the font could have been replaced with any other existing font, making the choice meaningless, but that seems more like an argument based on reason than law, and those don't have an impressive track record. I guess the other solution would be to change the font if you get a C&D, but that relies on using the font in a non-GPL work being a violation rather than the font making the work GPL by default. It would be illegal, but I doubt there's much that could be done. My expectations would be the former, especially if the document was explicitly licensed under something else, but again, the Law moves in mysterious ways.
The way I see it, unless you hard-code the font in, it can't have any affect. You aren't saying "use this font", you're saying "use a font named this".
Say two fonts come out with the same name, one GPL and one public domain. You might only know about the PD one, and use it in your document. The GPL obviously has no power, and nor can it do so when you give it to somebody who has only the GPL font. The only thing the document knows about the font is the name, which cannot be GPL'd.
It goes without saying that I am very much a totally real lawyer of the non-greedy-bastard vareity.
The Earth must have been a Real Programmer to have left it that long before getting the bugs ironed out.
My problem with that is that it's much easier to add a line to the beginning when the brace isn't followed by code. In Vim for instance, if the brace is separate you can just move to the first line and press O. If the brace is on the first line, you need |xO{ (assuming you use tabs rather than spaces - if not the x would have to be r<space> ), which is not only more keypresses but also harder to formulate. In a point-and-type editor, you could click anywhere on the brace line and press enter rather than having to put it at the beginning.
Checking braces with K&R is a bit of a problem, but most good editors won't make it too hard. And indents help with blocks anyway. Still, this is why everybody should use Lisp - the bracket goes before the construct, so you don't need an extra line for it.
A lot of that really doesn't sound too great to me.
I don't want Link to speak, and I don't just mean voice acting.
I don't want to have to fish.
I don't want hugely complex tables of what combines to make what.
I don't want to have to pick a horse as if it were some sort of racing sim.
I don't want a hugely complex storyline.
Resoning?
Zelda games are iconic. Link is an iconic character. It's good versus evil, right versus wrong. Link fights for the same reason we do, and that's whatever we choose to be fighting for, but it's invariably a good thing. As soon as we get told what Link's motivation is, that goes. If he speaks, we can't help making assumptions which may go completely against our ideas. That will ruin the experience. Games like that have their place - I loved Tales of Symphonia, for instance. But it's not Zelda.
Fishing was fun. But it's not the sort of thing I'd want to be forced into doing. I'd waste time on it, sure, but I wouldn't want to be doing it for any other reason. Perhaps because it could be incredibly frustrating, as well. That would only increase with the introduction of several different kinds of rod, bait, etc. Upgrading, sure, but not mix and match. And again, Link as an angler would make him less malleable.
Complexity is not a good thing in an iconic game. It ruins the effect. It brings you out of a fantasy. You don't want to have to remember too much. Being able to combine equipment will make you have to remember things. You'd have to try loads of different combinations.
Owning a stable would just be ugh. It would require active maintenance and draw you away from th game itesf. The only way it would work is if you owned it in name only, like the Cabana in Wind Waker. But then what would be the point? Being able to choose between several horses might not be so bad, as long as it's a simple comparison, like the swords in OoT. And as long as you don't ever get more than one at a time, or within a short span. Not being able to try them out properly would spoil it.
I think that explains all of them, at least in a roundabout way. I never was very good at expressing myself.
I don't think flying, becoming a wolf or having animals fight for you would work, either. I'm not entirely sure why, though.
Whtever Nintendo makes, I'm sure it will be great. I just don't think IGN's ideas are the same as Ninty's.
Mod -1, Redundant
(Racism is the cool thing nowadays, right?)
Call me crazy, but I'd be more incline to trust somebody with my life than with $20. As an example, compare the number of times you've been murdered against the number of times you've been robbed or scammed.
Unfortunately, it's analogue (unless you've added logic gates). It isn't possible to install something on an analogue computer. Doing something which is impossible violates natural laws, and is therefore illegal.
If you try, you'll be hearing from my lawyers.
Right now all Metafor is trying to do is place the framework for a program. You get that, and implement the low level stuff yourself. It's really just brainstorming.
However, maybe I'm just optimistic, but it seems to me that the only problem with translating English, or any other natural language, into a program is vocabulary. Grammar is easy to keep simple. Defining user input would be the hardest, because it requires faily complex grammar, but depending on the application, they could probably use it themselves.
'Search the internet for the phrase "Slashdot"' would be fairly simple. The only words it would need to know are search, internet and term. Articals such as 'the' and 'a' can usually be removed with no problems, and as long as you keep to the form 'verb object indirect object' the for would be redundant as well. 'Phrase' would make it clear that what follows is a literal string. So it would become 'search internet "Slashdot"'. That wouldn't be hard to understand. Implement search as a function which looks at its first argument to determine what to search ('internet' probably meaning 'Google') and the second argument as what to search for. Better yet, implement 'internet' as a noun, including information on how one searches it, advertises on it, connects to it, etc. If necessary, you could use grammatical aids to help such as hypenating multiple words, eg 'look-up the phrase "narcissism" in an online-dictionary'. It would become 'look-up "narcissism" online-dictionary', which would be simple. No trivial task, but it sounds at least vaguely plausible to me.
Or alternatively, they did it to uphold their monopoly.
i pedia.org/wiki/Nintendo
That's what the Wikipedia article suggests anyway, and I find it much more believable if the other things mentioned are true: orchestrating shortages, antitrust and only starting to put quality over quantity because they didn't have enough resources to manufacture lots of games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NES
http://en.wik
if you keep making elementary mistakes like this, people who can write and speak English properly will think that you are a drooling idiot and dismiss your argument as worthless.
This is true, but not something to be proud of. Dyslexic people have problems with spelling, that doesn't mean they're stupid or that their arguments should be ignored. You might as well say that looks matter because people judge on them. The fact that people make arbitrary assumptions does not mean the things they base those assumptions on are important.
I agree that you should use the correct form, but that's because phonetic spelling is based on an incorrect assumption: that people read phonetically. I can't speak for anybody else, but I for one don't. I can't explain how I do read, but it certainly isn't by squinting at the word and sounding it out. Not to mention that 'ne1' would be pronounced 'nee wun' (or 'neh wun'), not 'enn ee wun'. Therefore, proper spelling is easier for me to read, and doesn't need to be as interesting for me to consider it worth my while to read.
Trivial it may be, but about a year ago I was using a crappy machine with 70 odd megs of RAM. I did try compiling stuff from source. Honest. I decided that I didn't like it after the Gimp. I'm lucky (and so was my late computer) that I didn't run into any dependency issues. Anybody who wants to force me to build stuff from source if I can't get it from my distro gets the finger. Nowadays I mainly build stuff from source anyway, but that's my decision and I can easily reverse it out of spite.
If people screw their machines up, it's their problem. If you get caught up reinstalling for them, you can easily get out of it by telling them no. Banning rope won't prevent suicide, it'll just piss off the rock climbers. On the other hand, people won't (often) commit suicide if they think death is worse than life, so if you refuse to help dead people, they might learn and stop killing themselves. Those that don't will eventually give up and use a hammer, thus stopping them from infecting others. Natural selection, however bad my analagies might be.
I'd like to be able to enable these features at compile-time. Build Gecko, and pass options specifying that you want Firefox, Chatzilla and Composer, but not Thunderbird.
I've never actually played any of those. It was a pretty scary thought.
But they aren't the same, just like 2 is merely a subset of truth.
It should also be noted that the two statements are for different purposes. The dog one was informative, if not very much so. Facts and opinions do not have to apply to more than a single entitiy, therefore changing the entity in question is meaningless. The one you quoted was stating a rule: "Google can do what it likes". Rules do have to apply to more than a single entity, if not necessarily at the same time, so replacing an entity with any other entity in the same position has no effect on how the objective (in terms of the two entities) viewer reacts.