Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't something capable of "automating captcha attacks" be, um, a major advance in artificial cognition, and quite a wealth of scientific information, since that means it can solve an arbitrary captcha like a human can?
As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. debt situation is about the same as...
And does that debt count unfunded entitlement obligations, like Medicare and Social Security, which are functionally the same as debt? NO? Well, then it's not so rosy, is it? Read is the US bankrupt? for a more sobering look.
While I agree with your general point about the marginalization of third parties, I think this statement of yours is based on an insufficient understanding of the history of the Fairness Doctrine:
What a load of horse shit. If the "liberals" said domething they had to counter it with a "conservative" stance. Apparently the submitter thinks it's OK to censor Dems but not Repubs
What led to the submitter summary was this: Basically, virtually all talk show hosts capable of garnering an audience were conservative. So if a radio station wanted to have one of these guys, they'd have to have a liberal respond. At risk of sounding trollish (but this is just the history) the liberal response would be boring and lose listeners.
Again, I'm not trying to troll: the fact that conservatives had more mass appeal on radio could just as well be due to their oversimplification of the issues.
The upshot is, because radio shows couldn't justify the loss of listeners through the liberal response, via the gain through the conservative talk show hosts, the result of the Fairness Doctrine was much more detrimental to conservatives.
So yes, in theory it applies equally, but as the saying goes, "The law forbids the rich from sleeping under bridges, just the same as it does the poor."
It's like they're saying if you want meaningless information and bad or dangerous advice, and you want to pay a lot of money for it, these are the places to go.
And if that's what you want, you should probably just go to a faith healer or psychic.
Can't you still use those algorithms though? I mean, it's pretty trivial to check if a purported root or factorization is correct, right? So they don't really need to wait for a proof of Riemann, do they?
Yes, people are sent to fight pointless wars in the false belief that doing so is necessary to secure access to oil. Doesn't mean those lives are a COST of oil, just a cost of stupidity. Homer Simpson pours coffee grounds around his house to protect it from stampeding elephants; that doesn't mean that his purchases of coffee grounds are a subsidy to our elephant-free lifestyle.
Dock off the taxes oil companies pay and the dubiousness of the alleged subsidies (non-oil-using cars are road-compatible; all transportation systems have infrastructure costs), and no net tax money goes to oil.
Modern catalytic converters make gasoline usage have little impact on the breathability of the air. Coal, you have a case; 3rd world countries, you have a case; gasoline, you don't. Burning oil does release GHGs, but slivers of a percent of the atmosphere being CO2 does not make it "unbreathable".
Please stop repeating the "oil is subsidized with lives and money" Big Lie.
Oh, God, nothing like the sweet sound of rationalization.
So, let's see, Bell's music was the APEX of music, the BEST of all there is, but... somehow... just not good enough for anyone to actually give a damn, and so you go scurrying for evidence that still fits your preconceived notions. They see a diamond? Well, they'll pick it up, because it has well-known, clear, scientifically demonstrable value. But they wouldn't be *five freaking minutes late* -- ANY OF THEM (save a few) -- for a performance that's given away for FREE -- that people would normally pay $10,000 for.
And what else, oh, we can see it on an oscilloscope. Well, that wasn't quite the question, now, was it? The question was whether they could, in a double blind test -- meaning subtracting the bias of the PLAYER too -- they would deem it higher quality than a bunch of alternatives.
If there were actual merit in the Strad, scientists would have constructed a device with identical acoustics YEARS ago. But to account for the difference between no one giving a damn, and people paying $10,000, the best hypothesis is: the difference is only there when people decide it's there.
Actually, yes you can, when the instruments are in the hands of a musician who is capable of bringing out the best in his/her instrument.
Good job on proving his point. Whether you meant the player can tell the difference, or the listener *given* an expert player, the fact is, even when citing an example of someone who can genuinely tell Stradivarius from the others, you can only point to cases that are a few miles from double blind.
It's the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT as all the other stuff audiophiles try to cite as making a difference, or the pretense that certain works count as "art" while others don't, or the claim that certain wines or beers are better than others. It falls apart in any genuinely scientific test, and is purely a function of the BIAS the audience brings in. It pains me to see/.ers recognizing this phenomenon everywhere but here.
About a year ago, Joshua Bell, a "good" violinist brought in his own Strad to play for the busy DC commuters, and got virtually no attention, despite his music + violin being about the apex of artistic achievement. We saw the same rationalizers come out of the woodwork for that too. Somehow most beautiful sound civilization can produce, just doesn't suffice to make people want to be a few minutes late for work, but the motivated searchers here have a ready list of reasons to dismiss the experiment, don't you worry.
You want to know why the mystery of the Strad's awesomeness hasn't been solved in a hundred years? Because science can only attack problems susceptible to objective, quantifiable study and can generate reproducible results.
Awesome idea, but how it's that Al Gore's project? What does that have to do with Al Gore?
-Would interlinked, superintelligent brains be more likely to support immediate action on global warming? (Not that that's a bad thing, but superintelligent brains would be less likely to favor clumsy efficiency regulations and more likely to favor geoengineering and/or methods that price carbon externalities into fuel.)
-Would interlinked, superintelligent brains favor full vote recounts, or perhaps methods of selecting the US that favor the popular vote rather than the current weighted popular vote/state vote we currently have?
-Is Al Gore more likely to have the foresight to fund such a project in its infancy?
"All my criticisms of FireFox were valid, but sometimes I put in unnecessary commas that serve to clarify for ungrateful people who go to desperate lengths to be right about something."
I'm trying to enlighten you of the bounds on your ability to think abstractly. Maybe you haven't noticed, but I'd appreciate your cooperation.
****
So, a completely different phrasing follows the rules of grammar. Awesome! Be even better if it were topical.
Or, you know, if you took a gander at the longer versions of the question that I presented and asked yourself if there's a side you'd rather err on.
Oh, right: a side on which you'd rather err.
***
Just to get some perspective: having my list of Liarsux complaints get such stupid responses that devolve into usage of my comma criticism just goes to show how bad it is. (Hey, no comma!)
yet another point where this ceased to be a conversation and turned into your soapbox for how women are evil and hateful and out to get you.
I never said women are "out to get men". I said they give advice -- not necessarily, and certainly not IMHO intentionally -- that works against men's interest if taken. I'm sorry if the attribution of this phenomenon falsely implied malice on the part of women, but in all fairness, it's not like you were interested in thorough reflection on my insights either.
*I* said be honest about what your intentions are, so that the person you're interacting with can give you an honest answer.
YOU said lewd.
Yes, because that's what the term means. A specific request for sex -- you know, what you advocated the whole time -- is lewd.
Of course I know your point here: even if literally correct, "lewd" has a negative connotation that unfairly taints your position. You'd be wrong. Since we're viewing this in terms of the *average* woman, who could very well see such a direct request as being very unwelcome (even and especially if she likes the guy), "lewd" is the appropriate characterization of what you advocated.
My other complaint in this area was that your advice to "be honest" about your intentions, is either completely unclear, or completely ridiculous. Taken at face value it means that any interaction I initiate that isn't clearly directing it toward sex, is bad because it's dishonest. If I start small talk (e.g. that band is cool, these vegetables look great, etc), that's dishonest, because I'm not *really* intending to talk about the band, I just want to sleep with her.
The upshot is, and I've repeatedly tried to make this clear, your perspective is so far from most of the guys here, that the implications you see as obvious, aren't. When you suggested asking for sex directly, no one knew anything close to the bounds of what you were suggesting -- even the people who thought they agreed with you! (See the end of this post for what it would mean.)
*I* said that people who can't appreciate your honesty, and even a certain amount of awkwardness along with it, aren't worth your concern.
YOU interpreted this as "go rape girls... pshaw, who cares what THEY think".
You were repeatedly dismissing every concern I brought up with, "why would you care what others think? Just move on." Why care how a woman might react? Why care what others around me might think? (Yeah, omris, why would anyone care about something like that?)
Well, if I seriously didn't care, then yes, I could adopt this rugged personality you are advocating... and it would be the downfall of anyone actually following it. And it would also imply indifference to whether they're actually, you know, consenting for sex.
Omris, I understand if it's frustrating that that's not what you mean, but what am I supposed to think when you repeatedly advocate indifference to the feelings of others as a response to every single obstacle that might come up?
YOU said that people thought you were coming on too strong and were a physical threat to them.
*I* said you probably were creepy, if that was the case.
Yes, and my point was that it is possibilities like that one that prove how bad your advice is. If you accept the possibility that I (and by extension, the typical guy here that you're asking to follow this advice) might appear creepy to others -- and you give no warning whatsoever about this -- then you accept that there's a huge downside risk to what you advocate -- a risk that goes well beyond simple rejection by one person!
but for the rest of them out there, those of you who can take a reasonable statement like "be honest and direct about what you want" for what it is and not jump to the rape conclusion, use it to your heart's content
Omris... please. At the point where you told a geek-dominated forum (i.e. people who already tend to throw off a creepy vibe) to make lewd suggestions to women they just met, while knowing there is a non-trivial chance of it backfiring far beyond mere personal rejection, you forfeited your right to dismiss others' opinions on the grounds of being unreasonable.
But don't take my word for it: listen to the people *defending* you, who seem to have a very different idea of what it means to ask for sex.
My primary criticism was that you didn't actually present any ideas. When you did, I stopped complaining.
Bullshit. I presented far more than just that idea, PLUS the solution set was obvious from the beginning, PLUS even after defining the solution set you kept on asking. If you can't figure it out even after I present the list of valid buttons, you're... well, as smart as a LiarSux designer.
"who visited my mom yesterday" is a parenthetical and therefore set off by a comma before and after. It's perfectly justified by the laws of usage and not at all the same as what you did.
So in other words, the rule THAT ABSOLUTELY NO ONE MUST EVER VIOLATE and which you criticized me for... isn't quite as simple and absolute as you made it sound. Perhaps you... don't even understand it yourself? Just a thought.
Incidentally, while the sites I found may support your claim, there's a broader issue here. Whenver I have discretion in my grammar usage, such as on an internet forum, I favor bending the language in the direction of greater clarity.
Yes, I know they have specific usages. The "breather" reference was metaphorical; it wasn't intended to give the *literal* usage of a comma. Your incapability of abstract thought is probably what threw you off there. (Not an insult, just saying why it didn't surprise me.)
Anyway, I googled, and there definitely seems to be a bias against using commas the way I described. So how about this: I broke a standard in order to make my sentence easier to parse (i.e. avoid "garden path" sentences). Keep in mind, the whole point of that sentence was to criticize your inability to follow a chain of reasoning, so *of course* I would want to simplify it for you!
Oh no, no, you don't need to thank me. The fact that you were reduced to debating commas as your only remaining criticism of the ideas I introduced is thanks enough. (Bet you love parsing the sentence now, eh?)
Can the number not exceed three?
Can the number of steps not exceed three?
Can the number of steps in a chain of logic[,] not exceed three?
Can the number of steps in a chain of logic you consider, not exceed three?
Can the number of steps in a chain of logic you have decided to recently consider with your mind even thought you know damn well you can't maintain consistency across such a complicated deduction, not exceed three? (you better get the point by now)
(Btw, that's not how the rule works. "Sam, who visited my mom yesterday, came to see me today." Yep, comma between a subject and its verb.)
I'm not sure the specifics are that important. Making me move my hand like that for something that's supposed to be a welcome convenience is just stupid. If it's common practice, it's common stupidity.
(This is why I really need to move into user interface design for some company. I have an uncanny ability to always[1] want to use the most poorly-designed aspect of a product, and in precisely the way that the solution is obvious. The only problem is getting an employer to recognize this. Maybe I'll start a blog...)
[1]yes, split infinitive. You can shut up now.
Sorry to keep you waiting. What is my idea? Jeez, grab one at random. I'd be happy with making shift-spacebar (which I don't think is used for anything) switch between the previous entries, and then enter would input that one, possibly moving to the next field thereafter. Since enter would only do this non-standard function (choose something instead of submitting the form) if you chose to highlight an entry, it wouldn't get in the way of people who use "enter" for its standard function. Plus, my ability to fill out forms would become super speedy!
Already taken? Then use shift-enter to rotate. Or shift-backspace. Or alt-shift. Whatever lets my hands stay in their ultra-productive position for the entire form, making me blaze through it ultra-quickly!
The comma in question was out of place.
Nope. Let's look at it:
Can the number of steps in a chain of logic that you consider, not exceed three?
With a shorter subject, the question would be "Can X not exceed three?" But since the subject has become so long, it's not clear where I'm moving to the predicate. So, as per standard practice (google comma usage) I put a comma at the end of the subject, which tells the reader to "take a breath", note the proper parsing, and move on.
Really, though... if you have an idea... please share it with us. We're dying to hear it.
Wow, when I made the last post, I decided against listing the options I had in mind, thinking they were obvious and unimportant to making the point. But I guess I can't even give you *that* much credit.
Look bro: I see alt, I see shift, I see tab, I see ctrl, I see spacebar, I see enter. I see a zillion unused combinations of them. Is it that much of a mental leap to grab one and run with it? Come on!
Can you use commas correctly?
Yes, I can. Commas are appropriate to use when clarifying the parsing of long phrases. Wow, you really *can* dig yourself deeper!
We don't need people like you trolling these boards screaming "It's dumb, you're dumb, an idiot could fix it". What Firefox needs are people giving suggestions to make it better.
I'll give you that -- I should figure out how to submit ideas, even (as is probably the case) the process for doing so is tricky, and my brilliant suggestions will be ignored. Fair enough.
But I'd also submit that what LiarSux really needs is designers who are capable, given one year, of coming up with improvements that would be perfectly obvious to an end user who tries the product for ten minutes. My guess is that the for-profit software companies can pay more and poached every programmer with that level of intelligence already. Sound about right?
I resent the fact that you seem to think I lack intelligence.
Resent it all you want, kid. Probably be a better idea to DEAL WITH IT though.
What do you want? The autocomplete is there. You want to get rid of it? Ok, I told you how already.... I say again: what do you want? You haven't suggested how to improve it at all.
Case in point why I call you stupid. I explained that if you're going to helpfully remember my previous entries, you need to make it so that invoking them
*sigh*
you need to make it so that choosing and inputting one of them is actually *easier* than retyping the entry. Do you kind of start to understand why "der, just type it in" isn't a valid response? Make it so I can input one of those remembered entries without having to move my entire hand.
Your intellectual BS about "basic user interface enhancements" is well and good, but it won't design itself.
Right, it won't -- but ten seconds of thought from someone who's not even on the design team will do the trick.
Finally, I'm rather amused that you disable a major web building block and then complain that it breaks things. Go figure. (I certainly never said disabling JS block was "not recommended"...
Right, you didn't say that. I'm terribly sorry, I was confusing you with the official Firefox documentation. I didn't mean to attribute that much intelligence to you; I'll work on that in the future.
The complaint is not "disabling j/s breaks stuff requiring j/s." The complaint is "whitelisting a site in the middle of a multi-stage transaction unnecessarily runs the risk of having to start over".
I suppose you could just use $other_browser where you're unable to block JS and your secure transactions work just fine...
Do you not see how that gets in the way of making LiarSucks a browser that you can use for everything? Should I just use IE in the ultra-user-friendly Linux distros? Do you not see how that goes against the advice not to use IE on the grounds that it's not secure? Can the number of steps in a chain of logic that you consider, not exceed three?
-I'm not merely complaining about the pop-up list blocking my view; my point is that if you're trying to make it convenient, and typing the start of the name calls the list (which usually has just one member, but whatever), it DEFEATS THE PURPOSE to make me move my hand away from the normal position on the keyboard. The complaint is about inconstency. And really, if you're going to make me move to the arrow keys anyway, why not let me use them before I type anything in.
(Explain basic user interface enhancements to an open source fanboy is like talking to a wall, so go fig.)
And yes, you're damn right making me hit escape is extremely inconvenient.
-Captain even-more-Obvious says: don't call turning off j/s block "NOT RECOMMENDED" and then call me an idiot when I have the audacity to to use it! And please: telling me to turn off j/s block in the middle of a secure transaction is just asking to get screwed.
Were you trying to be funny? I can't quite tell. But your answers sure are ridiculous.
1. Deletes your bookmarks and history? I've never had that problem with it, and I'm guessing not too many others have, either.
That would be a neat trick considering all the sites that tell you how to recover bookmarks lost on an upgrade, and even programs people have written to handle it!
I tend to use the arrow keys to select one of the options from that box, instead of reaching for the mouse.
Psst! Moving my hand to the arrow keys takes it away from its natural position too... which was what I was referring to the whole time... or what you would have realized if you had thought for a few more seconds.
3. I just tested that. Type a partial address, or click the down arrow, and clicking on the address takes you there. No enter key necessary.
Okay, but it's worked in previous version and was removed on upgrade, and no site tells you how to restore the functionality, and it's impossible to find out how in the help, AND people have argued that this is a dangerous feature to have anyway!
Whatever the ultra-hidden option is for restoring it (can you even find out how to turn it off, Lire?), why would it *change* my setting between upgrades? Why would the makers delete evidence that it previously worked like this?
4. Oh, really? Processing more things takes more time? Never would've guessed.
This is the kind of thing that makes it hard to tell if you're joking. The complaint was, why does it even have to *do* anything to that years-long history of previous files, in order to start downloading? Why put itself in a position where it has to do an operation on each entry? I'm not starting a hundred downloads and wondering why it freezes. I'm downloading a single 30K picture and wondering why that caused LireSux to freeze, and then finding out it's because of pointless garbage collection that *i'm* expected to do on a simple text list that I rarely would ever refer to for stuff that long ago!
"Just pray"? I've never had a problem with this. I don't know anyone who's ever had a problem with this.
You've never been on screen number 5 of 12, at which the site starts involving a new domain that you haven't j/s whitelisted, and then when you do w/l it, gotten the big question about POSDATA?
It sounds to me like if you fix the problems with your machine, you'll have a better browsing experience. Of course, my apologies if there's something I've overlooked...
Yep, my machine causes a well-documented problem with bookmarks. My machine causes LireSux to pointlessly waste cycles on processing a text list before starting a download. My machine causes websites to slip in a 3rd domain on the fifth screen. My machine caused deeply-hidded options to get changed on upgrade, and people to rationalize why the old setting was unsafe. My machine causes LireSux to only accept arrow keys for selection of autocomplete entry.
If you were joking, I apologize, as some people really are that stupid:-P
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't something capable of "automating captcha attacks" be, um, a major advance in artificial cognition, and quite a wealth of scientific information, since that means it can solve an arbitrary captcha like a human can?
As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. debt situation is about the same as ...
And does that debt count unfunded entitlement obligations, like Medicare and Social Security, which are functionally the same as debt? NO? Well, then it's not so rosy, is it? Read is the US bankrupt? for a more sobering look.
While I agree with your general point about the marginalization of third parties, I think this statement of yours is based on an insufficient understanding of the history of the Fairness Doctrine:
What a load of horse shit. If the "liberals" said domething they had to counter it with a "conservative" stance. Apparently the submitter thinks it's OK to censor Dems but not Repubs
What led to the submitter summary was this: Basically, virtually all talk show hosts capable of garnering an audience were conservative. So if a radio station wanted to have one of these guys, they'd have to have a liberal respond. At risk of sounding trollish (but this is just the history) the liberal response would be boring and lose listeners.
Again, I'm not trying to troll: the fact that conservatives had more mass appeal on radio could just as well be due to their oversimplification of the issues.
The upshot is, because radio shows couldn't justify the loss of listeners through the liberal response, via the gain through the conservative talk show hosts, the result of the Fairness Doctrine was much more detrimental to conservatives.
So yes, in theory it applies equally, but as the saying goes, "The law forbids the rich from sleeping under bridges, just the same as it does the poor."
See: any history of the Fairness Doctrine.
To anyone who seriously believe's google's protocol is an order of magnitude faster than XML, I have two words for you:
No.
It's like they're saying if you want meaningless information and bad or dangerous advice, and you want to pay a lot of money for it, these are the places to go.
And if that's what you want, you should probably just go to a faith healer or psychic.
Seriously, what's wrong with the abicus?
The spelling?
(Disclaimer: I wish English would simplify its entire spelling system, blah blah blah.)
Exactly ... which is why I read the summary as "Fast-talking kid talks fools out of their money."
Uh huh. Let's have everything in your house connected to the internet and under your control.
Two words: SKYNET.
Can't you still use those algorithms though? I mean, it's pretty trivial to check if a purported root or factorization is correct, right? So they don't really need to wait for a proof of Riemann, do they?
Yes, people are sent to fight pointless wars in the false belief that doing so is necessary to secure access to oil. Doesn't mean those lives are a COST of oil, just a cost of stupidity. Homer Simpson pours coffee grounds around his house to protect it from stampeding elephants; that doesn't mean that his purchases of coffee grounds are a subsidy to our elephant-free lifestyle.
Dock off the taxes oil companies pay and the dubiousness of the alleged subsidies (non-oil-using cars are road-compatible; all transportation systems have infrastructure costs), and no net tax money goes to oil.
Modern catalytic converters make gasoline usage have little impact on the breathability of the air. Coal, you have a case; 3rd world countries, you have a case; gasoline, you don't. Burning oil does release GHGs, but slivers of a percent of the atmosphere being CO2 does not make it "unbreathable".
Please stop repeating the "oil is subsidized with lives and money" Big Lie.
Oh, God, nothing like the sweet sound of rationalization.
So, let's see, Bell's music was the APEX of music, the BEST of all there is, but ... somehow ... just not good enough for anyone to actually give a damn, and so you go scurrying for evidence that still fits your preconceived notions. They see a diamond? Well, they'll pick it up, because it has well-known, clear, scientifically demonstrable value. But they wouldn't be *five freaking minutes late* -- ANY OF THEM (save a few) -- for a performance that's given away for FREE -- that people would normally pay $10,000 for.
And what else, oh, we can see it on an oscilloscope. Well, that wasn't quite the question, now, was it? The question was whether they could, in a double blind test -- meaning subtracting the bias of the PLAYER too -- they would deem it higher quality than a bunch of alternatives.
If there were actual merit in the Strad, scientists would have constructed a device with identical acoustics YEARS ago. But to account for the difference between no one giving a damn, and people paying $10,000, the best hypothesis is: the difference is only there when people decide it's there.
Actually, yes you can, when the instruments are in the hands of a musician who is capable of bringing out the best in his/her instrument.
Good job on proving his point. Whether you meant the player can tell the difference, or the listener *given* an expert player, the fact is, even when citing an example of someone who can genuinely tell Stradivarius from the others, you can only point to cases that are a few miles from double blind.
It's the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT as all the other stuff audiophiles try to cite as making a difference, or the pretense that certain works count as "art" while others don't, or the claim that certain wines or beers are better than others. It falls apart in any genuinely scientific test, and is purely a function of the BIAS the audience brings in. It pains me to see /.ers recognizing this phenomenon everywhere but here.
About a year ago, Joshua Bell, a "good" violinist brought in his own Strad to play for the busy DC commuters, and got virtually no attention, despite his music + violin being about the apex of artistic achievement. We saw the same rationalizers come out of the woodwork for that too. Somehow most beautiful sound civilization can produce, just doesn't suffice to make people want to be a few minutes late for work, but the motivated searchers here have a ready list of reasons to dismiss the experiment, don't you worry.
You want to know why the mystery of the Strad's awesomeness hasn't been solved in a hundred years? Because science can only attack problems susceptible to objective, quantifiable study and can generate reproducible results.
Awesome idea, but how it's that Al Gore's project? What does that have to do with Al Gore?
-Would interlinked, superintelligent brains be more likely to support immediate action on global warming? (Not that that's a bad thing, but superintelligent brains would be less likely to favor clumsy efficiency regulations and more likely to favor geoengineering and/or methods that price carbon externalities into fuel.)
-Would interlinked, superintelligent brains favor full vote recounts, or perhaps methods of selecting the US that favor the popular vote rather than the current weighted popular vote/state vote we currently have?
-Is Al Gore more likely to have the foresight to fund such a project in its infancy?
Sure, let's call it off. Let's agree to:
"All my criticisms of FireFox were valid, but sometimes I put in unnecessary commas that serve to clarify for ungrateful people who go to desperate lengths to be right about something."
I'm trying to enlighten you of the bounds on your ability to think abstractly. Maybe you haven't noticed, but I'd appreciate your cooperation.
****
So, a completely different phrasing follows the rules of grammar. Awesome! Be even better if it were topical.
Or, you know, if you took a gander at the longer versions of the question that I presented and asked yourself if there's a side you'd rather err on.
Oh, right: a side on which you'd rather err.
***
Just to get some perspective: having my list of Liarsux complaints get such stupid responses that devolve into usage of my comma criticism just goes to show how bad it is. (Hey, no comma!)
yet another point where this ceased to be a conversation and turned into your soapbox for how women are evil and hateful and out to get you.
I never said women are "out to get men". I said they give advice -- not necessarily, and certainly not IMHO intentionally -- that works against men's interest if taken. I'm sorry if the attribution of this phenomenon falsely implied malice on the part of women, but in all fairness, it's not like you were interested in thorough reflection on my insights either.
*I* said be honest about what your intentions are, so that the person you're interacting with can give you an honest answer.
YOU said lewd.
Yes, because that's what the term means. A specific request for sex -- you know, what you advocated the whole time -- is lewd.
Of course I know your point here: even if literally correct, "lewd" has a negative connotation that unfairly taints your position. You'd be wrong. Since we're viewing this in terms of the *average* woman, who could very well see such a direct request as being very unwelcome (even and especially if she likes the guy), "lewd" is the appropriate characterization of what you advocated.
My other complaint in this area was that your advice to "be honest" about your intentions, is either completely unclear, or completely ridiculous. Taken at face value it means that any interaction I initiate that isn't clearly directing it toward sex, is bad because it's dishonest. If I start small talk (e.g. that band is cool, these vegetables look great, etc), that's dishonest, because I'm not *really* intending to talk about the band, I just want to sleep with her.
The upshot is, and I've repeatedly tried to make this clear, your perspective is so far from most of the guys here, that the implications you see as obvious, aren't. When you suggested asking for sex directly, no one knew anything close to the bounds of what you were suggesting -- even the people who thought they agreed with you! (See the end of this post for what it would mean.)
*I* said that people who can't appreciate your honesty, and even a certain amount of awkwardness along with it, aren't worth your concern.
YOU interpreted this as "go rape girls... pshaw, who cares what THEY think".
You were repeatedly dismissing every concern I brought up with, "why would you care what others think? Just move on." Why care how a woman might react? Why care what others around me might think? (Yeah, omris, why would anyone care about something like that?)
Well, if I seriously didn't care, then yes, I could adopt this rugged personality you are advocating ... and it would be the downfall of anyone actually following it. And it would also imply indifference to whether they're actually, you know, consenting for sex.
Omris, I understand if it's frustrating that that's not what you mean, but what am I supposed to think when you repeatedly advocate indifference to the feelings of others as a response to every single obstacle that might come up?
YOU said that people thought you were coming on too strong and were a physical threat to them.
*I* said you probably were creepy, if that was the case.
Yes, and my point was that it is possibilities like that one that prove how bad your advice is. If you accept the possibility that I (and by extension, the typical guy here that you're asking to follow this advice) might appear creepy to others -- and you give no warning whatsoever about this -- then you accept that there's a huge downside risk to what you advocate -- a risk that goes well beyond simple rejection by one person!
but for the rest of them out there, those of you who can take a reasonable statement like "be honest and direct about what you want" for what it is and not jump to the rape conclusion, use it to your heart's content
They *can't* so easily interpret that kin
Omris ... please. At the point where you told a geek-dominated forum (i.e. people who already tend to throw off a creepy vibe) to make lewd suggestions to women they just met, while knowing there is a non-trivial chance of it backfiring far beyond mere personal rejection, you forfeited your right to dismiss others' opinions on the grounds of being unreasonable.
But don't take my word for it: listen to the people *defending* you, who seem to have a very different idea of what it means to ask for sex.
My primary criticism was that you didn't actually present any ideas. When you did, I stopped complaining.
Bullshit. I presented far more than just that idea, PLUS the solution set was obvious from the beginning, PLUS even after defining the solution set you kept on asking. If you can't figure it out even after I present the list of valid buttons, you're ... well, as smart as a LiarSux designer.
"who visited my mom yesterday" is a parenthetical and therefore set off by a comma before and after. It's perfectly justified by the laws of usage and not at all the same as what you did.
So in other words, the rule THAT ABSOLUTELY NO ONE MUST EVER VIOLATE and which you criticized me for ... isn't quite as simple and absolute as you made it sound. Perhaps you ... don't even understand it yourself? Just a thought.
Incidentally, while the sites I found may support your claim, there's a broader issue here. Whenver I have discretion in my grammar usage, such as on an internet forum, I favor bending the language in the direction of greater clarity.
What's your policy?
Yes, I know they have specific usages. The "breather" reference was metaphorical; it wasn't intended to give the *literal* usage of a comma. Your incapability of abstract thought is probably what threw you off there. (Not an insult, just saying why it didn't surprise me.)
Anyway, I googled, and there definitely seems to be a bias against using commas the way I described. So how about this: I broke a standard in order to make my sentence easier to parse (i.e. avoid "garden path" sentences). Keep in mind, the whole point of that sentence was to criticize your inability to follow a chain of reasoning, so *of course* I would want to simplify it for you!
Oh no, no, you don't need to thank me. The fact that you were reduced to debating commas as your only remaining criticism of the ideas I introduced is thanks enough. (Bet you love parsing the sentence now, eh?)
Can the number not exceed three?
Can the number of steps not exceed three?
Can the number of steps in a chain of logic[,] not exceed three?
Can the number of steps in a chain of logic you consider, not exceed three?
Can the number of steps in a chain of logic you have decided to recently consider with your mind even thought you know damn well you can't maintain consistency across such a complicated deduction, not exceed three? (you better get the point by now)
(Btw, that's not how the rule works. "Sam, who visited my mom yesterday, came to see me today." Yep, comma between a subject and its verb.)
I'm not sure the specifics are that important. Making me move my hand like that for something that's supposed to be a welcome convenience is just stupid. If it's common practice, it's common stupidity.
(This is why I really need to move into user interface design for some company. I have an uncanny ability to always[1] want to use the most poorly-designed aspect of a product, and in precisely the way that the solution is obvious. The only problem is getting an employer to recognize this. Maybe I'll start a blog...)
[1]yes, split infinitive. You can shut up now.
Sorry to keep you waiting. What is my idea? Jeez, grab one at random. I'd be happy with making shift-spacebar (which I don't think is used for anything) switch between the previous entries, and then enter would input that one, possibly moving to the next field thereafter. Since enter would only do this non-standard function (choose something instead of submitting the form) if you chose to highlight an entry, it wouldn't get in the way of people who use "enter" for its standard function. Plus, my ability to fill out forms would become super speedy!
Already taken? Then use shift-enter to rotate. Or shift-backspace. Or alt-shift. Whatever lets my hands stay in their ultra-productive position for the entire form, making me blaze through it ultra-quickly!
The comma in question was out of place.
Nope. Let's look at it:
Can the number of steps in a chain of logic that you consider, not exceed three?
With a shorter subject, the question would be "Can X not exceed three?" But since the subject has become so long, it's not clear where I'm moving to the predicate. So, as per standard practice (google comma usage) I put a comma at the end of the subject, which tells the reader to "take a breath", note the proper parsing, and move on.
At least I don't have to resort to ad hominem attacks to make my points.
Neither do I, the points are just as valid without my accurate characterizations of you.
Oh-please-enlighten-me-good-sir. Just-how-would-you-like-that-done?
Really, though... if you have an idea ... please share it with us. We're dying to hear it.
Wow, when I made the last post, I decided against listing the options I had in mind, thinking they were obvious and unimportant to making the point. But I guess I can't even give you *that* much credit.
Look bro: I see alt, I see shift, I see tab, I see ctrl, I see spacebar, I see enter. I see a zillion unused combinations of them. Is it that much of a mental leap to grab one and run with it? Come on!
Can you use commas correctly?
Yes, I can. Commas are appropriate to use when clarifying the parsing of long phrases. Wow, you really *can* dig yourself deeper!
We don't need people like you trolling these boards screaming "It's dumb, you're dumb, an idiot could fix it". What Firefox needs are people giving suggestions to make it better.
I'll give you that -- I should figure out how to submit ideas, even (as is probably the case) the process for doing so is tricky, and my brilliant suggestions will be ignored. Fair enough.
But I'd also submit that what LiarSux really needs is designers who are capable, given one year, of coming up with improvements that would be perfectly obvious to an end user who tries the product for ten minutes. My guess is that the for-profit software companies can pay more and poached every programmer with that level of intelligence already. Sound about right?
Yeah, given the circumstances, silence is probably the most convincing reply you could have given. Well played.
I resent the fact that you seem to think I lack intelligence.
Resent it all you want, kid. Probably be a better idea to DEAL WITH IT though.
What do you want? The autocomplete is there. You want to get rid of it? Ok, I told you how already. ...
I say again: what do you want? You haven't suggested how to improve it at all.
Case in point why I call you stupid. I explained that if you're going to helpfully remember my previous entries, you need to make it so that invoking them
*sigh*
you need to make it so that choosing and inputting one of them is actually *easier* than retyping the entry. Do you kind of start to understand why "der, just type it in" isn't a valid response? Make it so I can input one of those remembered entries without having to move my entire hand.
Your intellectual BS about "basic user interface enhancements" is well and good, but it won't design itself.
Right, it won't -- but ten seconds of thought from someone who's not even on the design team will do the trick.
Finally, I'm rather amused that you disable a major web building block and then complain that it breaks things. Go figure. (I certainly never said disabling JS block was "not recommended"...
Right, you didn't say that. I'm terribly sorry, I was confusing you with the official Firefox documentation. I didn't mean to attribute that much intelligence to you; I'll work on that in the future.
The complaint is not "disabling j/s breaks stuff requiring j/s." The complaint is "whitelisting a site in the middle of a multi-stage transaction unnecessarily runs the risk of having to start over".
I suppose you could just use $other_browser where you're unable to block JS and your secure transactions work just fine...
Do you not see how that gets in the way of making LiarSucks a browser that you can use for everything? Should I just use IE in the ultra-user-friendly Linux distros? Do you not see how that goes against the advice not to use IE on the grounds that it's not secure? Can the number of steps in a chain of logic that you consider, not exceed three?
Wow, you really are that stupid.
-I'm not merely complaining about the pop-up list blocking my view; my point is that if you're trying to make it convenient, and typing the start of the name calls the list (which usually has just one member, but whatever), it DEFEATS THE PURPOSE to make me move my hand away from the normal position on the keyboard. The complaint is about inconstency. And really, if you're going to make me move to the arrow keys anyway, why not let me use them before I type anything in.
(Explain basic user interface enhancements to an open source fanboy is like talking to a wall, so go fig.)
And yes, you're damn right making me hit escape is extremely inconvenient.
-Captain even-more-Obvious says: don't call turning off j/s block "NOT RECOMMENDED" and then call me an idiot when I have the audacity to to use it! And please: telling me to turn off j/s block in the middle of a secure transaction is just asking to get screwed.
Were you trying to be funny? I can't quite tell. But your answers sure are ridiculous.
1. Deletes your bookmarks and history? I've never had that problem with it, and I'm guessing not too many others have, either.
That would be a neat trick considering all the sites that tell you how to recover bookmarks lost on an upgrade, and even programs people have written to handle it!
I tend to use the arrow keys to select one of the options from that box, instead of reaching for the mouse.
Psst! Moving my hand to the arrow keys takes it away from its natural position too ... which was what I was referring to the whole time ... or what you would have realized if you had thought for a few more seconds.
3. I just tested that. Type a partial address, or click the down arrow, and clicking on the address takes you there. No enter key necessary.
Okay, but it's worked in previous version and was removed on upgrade, and no site tells you how to restore the functionality, and it's impossible to find out how in the help, AND people have argued that this is a dangerous feature to have anyway!
Whatever the ultra-hidden option is for restoring it (can you even find out how to turn it off, Lire?), why would it *change* my setting between upgrades? Why would the makers delete evidence that it previously worked like this?
4. Oh, really? Processing more things takes more time? Never would've guessed.
This is the kind of thing that makes it hard to tell if you're joking. The complaint was, why does it even have to *do* anything to that years-long history of previous files, in order to start downloading? Why put itself in a position where it has to do an operation on each entry? I'm not starting a hundred downloads and wondering why it freezes. I'm downloading a single 30K picture and wondering why that caused LireSux to freeze, and then finding out it's because of pointless garbage collection that *i'm* expected to do on a simple text list that I rarely would ever refer to for stuff that long ago!
"Just pray"? I've never had a problem with this. I don't know anyone who's ever had a problem with this.
You've never been on screen number 5 of 12, at which the site starts involving a new domain that you haven't j/s whitelisted, and then when you do w/l it, gotten the big question about POSDATA?
It sounds to me like if you fix the problems with your machine, you'll have a better browsing experience. Of course, my apologies if there's something I've overlooked...
Yep, my machine causes a well-documented problem with bookmarks. My machine causes LireSux to pointlessly waste cycles on processing a text list before starting a download. My machine causes websites to slip in a 3rd domain on the fifth screen. My machine caused deeply-hidded options to get changed on upgrade, and people to rationalize why the old setting was unsafe. My machine causes LireSux to only accept arrow keys for selection of autocomplete entry.
If you were joking, I apologize, as some people really are that stupid :-P