I get what you are saying, but let's not forget that GUI design, at its best, is about usability, not just pretty graphics. And as such, it should be part of the initial design, not something that is tacked on last.
I haven't used this version yet, but the previous versions, in my opinion, fell short not because they didn't have pretty Aqua widgets, but because the GUI was clunky and counterproductive.
Just saying...
There's no law that says dictionaries have to be one and not the other. It's up to the editors at the major dictionary companies which way they want to lean.
Just because he did something different the last two times from what you were expecting doesn't mean you'll always hate his work.
If, by "different," you mean, "crappy," then no, that's exactly what I expected from him.
If you ask me, and I realize you haven't, Lucas is a good director in the same sense that Charlie Babbit (Rainman) is a good mathematician. Lucas can do a lot of things extraordinarily well, not least of which is putting together a special effects shot. He is, however, a terrible writer of dialog, he has a huge blind spot when it comes to casting, and he is utterly incapable of working with actors.
Of course there are other people with some responsibilities for those tasks, but in the end, Lucas has to approve decisions made on those fronts, and he has never failed to fail. The cumulative effect is that his movies lack emotional depth. That's not to say they aren't passionate, but it's the passion of a bunch of adolescents (probably the reason so many SW fans latched on when they were 13). The series only ever showed any real gravitas when they hired a good writer or two to punch it up (e.g. TESB vis-a-vis Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan).
Think I'm full of it? Ask Harrison Ford, who famously told Lucas, "You can write this shit, George, but you can't say it."
Speaking from a point of view of someone who spent years working with people in therapy, it sounds like this person has some issues that go deeper than the anger and frustration most people deal with.
It's called "boss-itis." I think all bosses are required to suffer from metal ailments.
I used to work at a magazine. Our editor in chief would call the entire staff into a conference room and harangue us for up to four hours because he found a typo in an article (before it was printed). One typo could cause him to say that we were "worthless," "useless," "unprofessional," "shit," and many other such fine terms.
Meanwhile, our work would not be getting finished, leaving us more pressed for time and more likely to make mistakes.
The guy was a lunatic, and it extended beyond work. When he first met my wife, I introduced her and said she was an opera singer (she is). The first words out of his mouth were, "I don't really like music with women's voices." What an ass.
I'm no apologist for either neo-cons or fundies, but you need to keep your facts straight:
neoconservative != fundamentalist
The former has nothing to do with religion, and the two are in bed together only because they share certain goals, namely the establishment of a strong Israeli state.
Uh, would that be the same China that relies on the U.S. to buy a huge chunk of the goods they produce, and that loans hundreds of billions of dollars every year to the U.S. to help prop up the economy there so that they can continue buying those goods? That China?
And these military payloads, they fit into this economic equation how?
This is such a fantasy I don't even know where to begin. Rebels in various industries? Kill a few high profile Congress people? A general strike? Who is going to set all this up? The Antichrist?
This isn't even an argument. It's a film script. Your numbers are just pulled out of thin air (here's a hint for you: a company is not even in the vicinity of 10,000 troops). What history of armed revolt within democratic nations do you have to draw on? Even stipulating (which I will gladly do) that the U.S. is not as democratic as it used to be, where does any of this lunacy come from other than your own mind?
Your so-called "tactical plan" reads like one of those/. joke business plans: 1) Eat a lot of donuts, 2) ???, 3) Profit! I mean, really, "Destroy civilian participation in government." Just like that, huh? An established army of insurgents with military training hasn't been able to do that in lawless Iraq, and you dash it off like it's comparable to going to the store and buying a loaf of bread.
And citing a colonial revolution against a monarchy on the other side of the ocean 200 years ago as a precedent for the ridiculous scenario you paint here... really, it makes me wonder why I am still participating in this thread. I have real work to do.
I'm not going to say anything about the logistics or administration of your 5,000,000 man army (that would be one of the largest armies currently on Earth). I'm not even going to argue with the blatant falsehoods that inform your thinking (though I will point out that neither Clinton nor the DOJ ever said any such thing). But I will say this: Politcal power has very little to do with guns, and if you don't understand the significance of the popular support of 1/3 of the people of this country in any terms other than Democrat vs. Republican (or in terms of how many people they can shoot), well, you need to branch out your reading list somewhat.
And you do realize that the Iraqi insurgents are composed largely of trained military people, right?
The Afghanis didn't defeat the Soviets because they were free to keep 20-gauge shotguns in their houses. They defeated the Soviets because they were being trained by the CIA and supplied with heavy ordnance. You can't just write that off as a minor "difference." It's fundamental.
As for backing from China, OPEC, or the EU, well... let's put aside what a ridiculous and glib scenario that is for a moment so that I can just point out that in the event of an armed insurrection in the U.S., China, OPEC, and the EU would not subject to the dictates (or lack thereof) of the U.S. Constitution.
P.S. Point of fact, cruise missiles *were* used in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they didn't exist as such at the time of the other conflicts you mention. Moreover, the main reason they are not being used in Iraq and Afghanistan right now is that they take too long to arrive. The firepower being actively deployed, however, is just as destructive. "Cruise missiles and nukes" is simply a metaphor for the unmatched destructive power of the U.S. military, one dead Abrams over a two-year war notwithstanding.
a) Any revolution as widespread as you describe wouldn't need weapons to achieve success. 1/3 of the population is more than voted for George Bush.
b) If you honestly think that a guerrilla army of 5 million could form in the United States without drawing the attention of the government, you're an idiot. Assuming, of course, that it didn't form overnight, a la "Red Dawn." and if you assume that, you're worse than an idiot -- you're Patrick Swayze.
c) You throw around phrases like "well-funded guerrilla army," but that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. If you've got the funds for a guerrilla army capable of fighting inside the United States, the lack of 2nd amendment protections would hardly be a hindrance.
I'm not a hardliner when it comes to the 2nd amendment. I think there are plenty of good reasons for bearing arms, and I don't care to see it circumscribed.
The notion, however, that it can be defended on the grounds that we might have to resort to bloody revolution is just patently ridiculous. As long as America remains a democracy, the power of a large, well-organized political force is enough. If it ceases to be a democracy, you damn well better count on fighting the U.S. Armed Forces, and no ragtag Idaho militia is going to go toe-to-toe with even one company of regular troops.
Simply having weapons doesn't give anyone the moral authority to use them. That's why we call Timothy McVeigh a nut instead of a revolutionary.
All of which is irrelevant unless you allow people to keep cruise missiles and nuclear warheads over their mantles. Do you really think you can foster a successful violent revolution with hunting rifles? On the other hand, do you really want everyone to have access to every kind of weaponry currently available?
No matter how you slice it, the 2nd amendment is not a part of the Constitution that has aged well.
There's a large contingent of Slashdotters who believe that design is something you do with drapes, and that it is a girly activity that has no place in the manly world of information. You see this reaction in the knee-jerk hatred of Flash, as though the technology itself were responsible for its misuse by uneducated morons.
Fact is, design is as serious and complex a discipline as programming, or physics, or just about anything else you can think of. Moreover, people have been at it longer than almost anything else, judging by those drawings on the cave walls in France. We live in a world in which *everything* is designed (try spending a little time looking around you to see what hasn't been designed. From where I sit, there isn't much that falls into this category -- even the bunch of bananas sitting to my left has a little sticker on them with a logo.
In a world where information is in such great quantity, design is crucial. And when you are constantly competing with other designers, amateur design doesn't cut it -- it's got to be *good* design. It's good to see an article emphasizing this point of view.
And just what claim does the government have on my family's money if it's been gained by doing honest work? "To prevent some families gathering too much money" is a just a sad excuse for class envy and socialism.
Uh, who do you think pays for all those weapons that defend your family's money against the depredations of the Axis of Evil? Who pays for all those cops that bust crackheads that are trying to break into your house to steal your family's money? Who pays for all those roads that allow you to haul your family's money around in armored cars?
Taking it out would be like re-editing the last reel of The Blues Brothers so they would only be chased for five miles by two or three cop cars. The scene would be shorter, cheaper, still contain everything "needed" to tell the story, but it would not funny.
But that was entirely a visual joke. The leopard joke violates the first rule of film: show, don't tell. Perhaps they should have come up with a way to show the basement, the leopard, etc., but the argument you are making would only work if the last reel of the Blues Brothers had been simply described by one character to another. And that, of course, would have been very unfunny.
Slashdot Mirror
That's no moon!
Copying files is, in some circumstances, legal.
I get what you are saying, but let's not forget that GUI design, at its best, is about usability, not just pretty graphics. And as such, it should be part of the initial design, not something that is tacked on last. I haven't used this version yet, but the previous versions, in my opinion, fell short not because they didn't have pretty Aqua widgets, but because the GUI was clunky and counterproductive. Just saying...
There's no law that says dictionaries have to be one and not the other. It's up to the editors at the major dictionary companies which way they want to lean.
This is our "vision for the future?" Destroying things from orbit? Quite a culture we've got here.
Funny... MS has never worried about scaring the living shit out of users in the past.
How do the snakes know what an S is shaped like?
Just because he did something different the last two times from what you were expecting doesn't mean you'll always hate his work.
If, by "different," you mean, "crappy," then no, that's exactly what I expected from him.
If you ask me, and I realize you haven't, Lucas is a good director in the same sense that Charlie Babbit (Rainman) is a good mathematician. Lucas can do a lot of things extraordinarily well, not least of which is putting together a special effects shot. He is, however, a terrible writer of dialog, he has a huge blind spot when it comes to casting, and he is utterly incapable of working with actors.
Of course there are other people with some responsibilities for those tasks, but in the end, Lucas has to approve decisions made on those fronts, and he has never failed to fail. The cumulative effect is that his movies lack emotional depth. That's not to say they aren't passionate, but it's the passion of a bunch of adolescents (probably the reason so many SW fans latched on when they were 13). The series only ever showed any real gravitas when they hired a good writer or two to punch it up (e.g. TESB vis-a-vis Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan).
Think I'm full of it? Ask Harrison Ford, who famously told Lucas, "You can write this shit, George, but you can't say it."
Well, he doesn't have a job anymore anyway, so now he's nobody's problem but his own.
It's funny though -- your reaction based on my stories describes him to a T.
Agreed. The boss shouldn't stop being a dick because he's afraid of retribution... he should stop because being a dick is a dick thing to do.
Speaking from a point of view of someone who spent years working with people in therapy, it sounds like this person has some issues that go deeper than the anger and frustration most people deal with.
It's called "boss-itis." I think all bosses are required to suffer from metal ailments.
I used to work at a magazine. Our editor in chief would call the entire staff into a conference room and harangue us for up to four hours because he found a typo in an article (before it was printed). One typo could cause him to say that we were "worthless," "useless," "unprofessional," "shit," and many other such fine terms.
Meanwhile, our work would not be getting finished, leaving us more pressed for time and more likely to make mistakes.
The guy was a lunatic, and it extended beyond work. When he first met my wife, I introduced her and said she was an opera singer (she is). The first words out of his mouth were, "I don't really like music with women's voices." What an ass.
I'm no apologist for either neo-cons or fundies, but you need to keep your facts straight:
neoconservative != fundamentalist
The former has nothing to do with religion, and the two are in bed together only because they share certain goals, namely the establishment of a strong Israeli state.
the emerging threat from China
Uh, would that be the same China that relies on the U.S. to buy a huge chunk of the goods they produce, and that loans hundreds of billions of dollars every year to the U.S. to help prop up the economy there so that they can continue buying those goods? That China?
And these military payloads, they fit into this economic equation how?
What, Indians can't learn to comment their code? And for cheaper than Americans?
What does that have to do with the second amendment?
You're insane.
This is such a fantasy I don't even know where to begin. Rebels in various industries? Kill a few high profile Congress people? A general strike? Who is going to set all this up? The Antichrist?
This isn't even an argument. It's a film script. Your numbers are just pulled out of thin air (here's a hint for you: a company is not even in the vicinity of 10,000 troops). What history of armed revolt within democratic nations do you have to draw on? Even stipulating (which I will gladly do) that the U.S. is not as democratic as it used to be, where does any of this lunacy come from other than your own mind?
Your so-called "tactical plan" reads like one of those /. joke business plans: 1) Eat a lot of donuts, 2) ???, 3) Profit! I mean, really, "Destroy civilian participation in government." Just like that, huh? An established army of insurgents with military training hasn't been able to do that in lawless Iraq, and you dash it off like it's comparable to going to the store and buying a loaf of bread.
And citing a colonial revolution against a monarchy on the other side of the ocean 200 years ago as a precedent for the ridiculous scenario you paint here... really, it makes me wonder why I am still participating in this thread. I have real work to do.
I'm not going to say anything about the logistics or administration of your 5,000,000 man army (that would be one of the largest armies currently on Earth). I'm not even going to argue with the blatant falsehoods that inform your thinking (though I will point out that neither Clinton nor the DOJ ever said any such thing). But I will say this: Politcal power has very little to do with guns, and if you don't understand the significance of the popular support of 1/3 of the people of this country in any terms other than Democrat vs. Republican (or in terms of how many people they can shoot), well, you need to branch out your reading list somewhat.
And you do realize that the Iraqi insurgents are composed largely of trained military people, right?
The Afghanis didn't defeat the Soviets because they were free to keep 20-gauge shotguns in their houses. They defeated the Soviets because they were being trained by the CIA and supplied with heavy ordnance. You can't just write that off as a minor "difference." It's fundamental.
As for backing from China, OPEC, or the EU, well... let's put aside what a ridiculous and glib scenario that is for a moment so that I can just point out that in the event of an armed insurrection in the U.S., China, OPEC, and the EU would not subject to the dictates (or lack thereof) of the U.S. Constitution.
P.S. Point of fact, cruise missiles *were* used in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they didn't exist as such at the time of the other conflicts you mention. Moreover, the main reason they are not being used in Iraq and Afghanistan right now is that they take too long to arrive. The firepower being actively deployed, however, is just as destructive. "Cruise missiles and nukes" is simply a metaphor for the unmatched destructive power of the U.S. military, one dead Abrams over a two-year war notwithstanding.
a) Any revolution as widespread as you describe wouldn't need weapons to achieve success. 1/3 of the population is more than voted for George Bush.
b) If you honestly think that a guerrilla army of 5 million could form in the United States without drawing the attention of the government, you're an idiot. Assuming, of course, that it didn't form overnight, a la "Red Dawn." and if you assume that, you're worse than an idiot -- you're Patrick Swayze.
c) You throw around phrases like "well-funded guerrilla army," but that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. If you've got the funds for a guerrilla army capable of fighting inside the United States, the lack of 2nd amendment protections would hardly be a hindrance.
I'm not a hardliner when it comes to the 2nd amendment. I think there are plenty of good reasons for bearing arms, and I don't care to see it circumscribed.
The notion, however, that it can be defended on the grounds that we might have to resort to bloody revolution is just patently ridiculous. As long as America remains a democracy, the power of a large, well-organized political force is enough. If it ceases to be a democracy, you damn well better count on fighting the U.S. Armed Forces, and no ragtag Idaho militia is going to go toe-to-toe with even one company of regular troops.
Simply having weapons doesn't give anyone the moral authority to use them. That's why we call Timothy McVeigh a nut instead of a revolutionary.
All of which is irrelevant unless you allow people to keep cruise missiles and nuclear warheads over their mantles. Do you really think you can foster a successful violent revolution with hunting rifles? On the other hand, do you really want everyone to have access to every kind of weaponry currently available? No matter how you slice it, the 2nd amendment is not a part of the Constitution that has aged well.
There's a large contingent of Slashdotters who believe that design is something you do with drapes, and that it is a girly activity that has no place in the manly world of information. You see this reaction in the knee-jerk hatred of Flash, as though the technology itself were responsible for its misuse by uneducated morons. Fact is, design is as serious and complex a discipline as programming, or physics, or just about anything else you can think of. Moreover, people have been at it longer than almost anything else, judging by those drawings on the cave walls in France. We live in a world in which *everything* is designed (try spending a little time looking around you to see what hasn't been designed. From where I sit, there isn't much that falls into this category -- even the bunch of bananas sitting to my left has a little sticker on them with a logo. In a world where information is in such great quantity, design is crucial. And when you are constantly competing with other designers, amateur design doesn't cut it -- it's got to be *good* design. It's good to see an article emphasizing this point of view.
It's time we stop pretending a little socialism is a bad thing. Bring on the free wi-fi.
Let's be ridiculously literal!
And just what claim does the government have on my family's money if it's been gained by doing honest work? "To prevent some families gathering too much money" is a just a sad excuse for class envy and socialism.
Uh, who do you think pays for all those weapons that defend your family's money against the depredations of the Axis of Evil? Who pays for all those cops that bust crackheads that are trying to break into your house to steal your family's money? Who pays for all those roads that allow you to haul your family's money around in armored cars?
Oh, right... the rest of us.
Taking it out would be like re-editing the last reel of The Blues Brothers so they would only be chased for five miles by two or three cop cars. The scene would be shorter, cheaper, still contain everything "needed" to tell the story, but it would not funny.
But that was entirely a visual joke. The leopard joke violates the first rule of film: show, don't tell. Perhaps they should have come up with a way to show the basement, the leopard, etc., but the argument you are making would only work if the last reel of the Blues Brothers had been simply described by one character to another. And that, of course, would have been very unfunny.