I used to hear that on the radio all the time in the 70s. I never knew Christopher Guest wrote the music. Of course, back then I didn't even know who he was (if you have a citation you might want to add it to wikipedia's article). I just knew that it came out of National Lampoon.
Or, you could make statement 2 without ever having made statement 1. Then the worst that happens is that you are caught lying about making statement 1; meanwhile, you've planted the suggestion that statement 1 is true.
I'm not a lawyer, so I wonder if that technicality could be used to avoid a perjury charge if you made statement 2 under oath. Perjury requires establishing that the statement in question is material to the case in which it is given. Statement 1 might be material to some case, while statement 2 could conceivably be immaterial to the same case.
Anyone who claims "the debate is over" about global warming is not a scientist. The debate on global warming is certainly not over.
Anyone who claims it's a matter of debate is not a scientist. Science does not settle questions based on who wins a debate. Science is a process; it's all about method, not about personalities and rhetoric.
A company in this case would not want to be found disobeying proper government authority if they said no.
That's rather disingenuous. If the action is illegal then it can't have been "proper government authority". Just like it wasn't "proper government authority" that sold arms to Iran to fund the Contras, even though the executive branch was behind it.
Was a gun held against the telco's head or something?
Thanks for the link. I had searched around Apple's site and couldn't find a bug reporting page. Now, why should I need a freakin' id to file a freakin' bug report? And do I really have to "purchase technical support incidents" (a negative bounty?) to help *them* find out what's wrong with *their* product? Bug reporting should be free, and it should be readily linked from their home page (or at most two clicks away), with just an e-mail address.
Focus-stealing is just plain stupid. I launch an application, I return to the application I was running and begin typing. Suddenly I'm typing in a different window, to a different application. That's not expected behavior (unless like sheep we just give up and welcome the GUI overlord, instead of the user, dictating what activity will be in the foreground). It's just not right.
That's actually the point of the criticism -- if an application is minimized, you have to use the mouse to get it back, command-Tab doesn't un-minimize. It's us keyboard folks who are annoyed by the minimize behavior, not mouse users.
Yes, that is exactly why you should use command-H rather than minimize. If you prefer the keyboard then command-H is easier than minimize anyway. After command-H, command-Tab does bring it back (or shift-command-Tab, as someone else pointed out, so you don't have to go through the whole cycle).
Spaces has a very annoying behavior, much worse than translucent menu bars IMO. Say you're working in workspace #1, and you launch an application that you've set up to always launch in workspace #2. You keep working in space #1, and all of a sudden you're jerked out of it into space #2. This is theft of focus, plain and simple, but allowing it in spaces just makes it twice as aggravating. The rule should be: Only change spaces when the user requests the change.
I don't see it on the list. Please, Apple, fix this problem!
He's asking for a quick way to get whatever's in front of him out of the way so he can see what's underneath it.
Ah, you mean command-H.
minimizing to the Dock doesn't do this (because once you minimize, you have to do something completely different in order to get your window back,
Yes, as completely different as command-Tabbing back to the application. *Sigh* I guess this just isn't a big deal to those of us who prefer keyboard actions to mouse actions.
It's hardly worth arguing, since I'm not defending OP's position, but I so hate being misinterpreted. Keep my quote in context:
I assumed differently, namely that he meant that if Paul is for strong national security (answer #1), he would likely, if President, find that he would have to avoid answering, or give misleading answers, to some questions (contradicting answer #2).
That says answer #2 could (hypothetically) be contradicted in the future if adherence to answer #1 required the President to give a misleading answer. It doesn't say answer #1 by itself contains a contradiction, nor does it say that I believed OP was saying #1 contained a contradiction. Here you imply that my statement was somehow about answer #1 either being unclear or containing a contradiction:
What is not clear or is contradictory about "America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight"?
As it turns out, nevurthls (the OP) did explain that he believed answer #1 was, in itself, unclear (not contradictory). This is not what I suggested his intended meaning was. Further, he believes that, by giving an unclear answer to #1, #2 was contradicted (now, not in the future as in my hypothetical). Since he is the one claiming #1 is unclear, I repeat that you should take it up with him.
OK, so you didn't read my post before answering (my post had nothing to do with the clarity or consistency of the first answer). But elsewhere in this thread, the OP has already given his explanation of what he meant, making my comment moot. If you find his post you can argue your point with him.
And what happens if you have no winner? You start the whole process over again? I'd think everyone would be so sick of it by then that nobody would be interested in voting anymore.
Look at the US electorate today. Republicans are a fractured alliance of business interests, paleocons, neocons, and religious extremists. Democrats are a (slightly less) fractured alliance of liberals and "third-way" politicians. Forget about trying to please a majority at this point. If we can find the candidate who is disapproved by the fewest voters, and put him or her in office, that's about all the harmony you're going to get.
You are too used to the classical evasive political ethos. Have some faith that someone, someday, will be both honest AND elected. Just because we've never seen it happen doesn't make it impossible, in the absolute.
I was only trying to suggest a feasible interpretation of the OP. You should direct this at him/her, not me (assuming I interpreted the post correctly).
I assumed differently, namely that he meant that if Paul is for strong national security (answer #1), he would likely, if President, find that he would have to avoid answering, or give misleading answers, to some questions (contradicting answer #2). But we'll have to hope the original poster comes back to answer, 'cause I'm only guessing, too.
Here we go with the scary stories again. Congress does not have the power to invalidate a specific patent. You'd have to change the Constitution for that.
Actually, approval voting is exactly what he describes (minus the silly greater-than-zero requirement for a winner). With range voting, you effectively get approval voting, if everyone pushes all of their votes to the extremes. But the problem with range voting, as I see it, is that some people will vote the extremes, but others might only put two candidates at the extremes and put the other candidates somewhere in between, and still others might not vote any of the candidates at the extremes. In a post to another/. story, I called the last two behaviors "false altruism", because they may end up hurting people in the same camp as the voter who thinks he's doing others a favor. So just give me approval voting, plain and simple.
As for GP's greater-than-zero requirement, I think it's misguided. In a deeply divided electorate with three or more factions, it's easy to conceive of a race where no candidate gets more than 50% approval. This isn't a comment on the quality of the candidates -- it could be a comment on the diversity of views, or maybe even voter obstinacy preventing the approval of a compromise candidate.
Hillary helped draw up impeachment documents as a House staffer during Watergate.
And she has stated that our current president Bush is the worst president in the history of the country.
So where is that young Hillary Rodham today? Why isn't she calling for impeachment of the worst U.S. president in history?
Slashdot Mirror
I used to hear that on the radio all the time in the 70s. I never knew Christopher Guest wrote the music. Of course, back then I didn't even know who he was (if you have a citation you might want to add it to wikipedia's article). I just knew that it came out of National Lampoon.
Thanks for the nostalgia kick!
...and even then it was old news.
If we keep the winter hours than we get more of that nice daytime after work all year long.
That's backwards. In the winter when the clocks are on standard time, they are an hour behind daylight saving time, so the sun sets earlier.
I'm sure he has a few.
You didn't RTFA:
"I'm trying to figure out a way to make the Air a part of my life because i'm a one-laptop-only person," he said.
Or, you could make statement 2 without ever having made statement 1. Then the worst that happens is that you are caught lying about making statement 1; meanwhile, you've planted the suggestion that statement 1 is true.
I'm not a lawyer, so I wonder if that technicality could be used to avoid a perjury charge if you made statement 2 under oath. Perjury requires establishing that the statement in question is material to the case in which it is given. Statement 1 might be material to some case, while statement 2 could conceivably be immaterial to the same case.
Anyone who claims "the debate is over" about global warming is not a scientist. The debate on global warming is certainly not over.
Anyone who claims it's a matter of debate is not a scientist. Science does not settle questions based on who wins a debate. Science is a process; it's all about method, not about personalities and rhetoric.
A company in this case would not want to be found disobeying proper government authority if they said no.
That's rather disingenuous. If the action is illegal then it can't have been "proper government authority". Just like it wasn't "proper government authority" that sold arms to Iran to fund the Contras, even though the executive branch was behind it.
Was a gun held against the telco's head or something?
But I'm not a developer, I'm a random person.
...and I'm not sure why you feel Slashdot is the place to be schooling folks on etiquette.
As I said, be respectful since this is like a semi-direct line to Apple's developers. It's for one developer to another.
Thanks for the link. I had searched around Apple's site and couldn't find a bug reporting page. Now, why should I need a freakin' id to file a freakin' bug report? And do I really have to "purchase technical support incidents" (a negative bounty?) to help *them* find out what's wrong with *their* product? Bug reporting should be free, and it should be readily linked from their home page (or at most two clicks away), with just an e-mail address.
Focus-stealing is just plain stupid. I launch an application, I return to the application I was running and begin typing. Suddenly I'm typing in a different window, to a different application. That's not expected behavior (unless like sheep we just give up and welcome the GUI overlord, instead of the user, dictating what activity will be in the foreground). It's just not right.
That's actually the point of the criticism -- if an application is minimized, you have to use the mouse to get it back, command-Tab doesn't un-minimize. It's us keyboard folks who are annoyed by the minimize behavior, not mouse users.
Yes, that is exactly why you should use command-H rather than minimize. If you prefer the keyboard then command-H is easier than minimize anyway. After command-H, command-Tab does bring it back (or shift-command-Tab, as someone else pointed out, so you don't have to go through the whole cycle).
I wonder how many people here saw Idiocracy. Very funny movie, and I appreciate your reference!
Spaces has a very annoying behavior, much worse than translucent menu bars IMO. Say you're working in workspace #1, and you launch an application that you've set up to always launch in workspace #2. You keep working in space #1, and all of a sudden you're jerked out of it into space #2. This is theft of focus, plain and simple, but allowing it in spaces just makes it twice as aggravating. The rule should be: Only change spaces when the user requests the change.
I don't see it on the list. Please, Apple, fix this problem!
He's asking for a quick way to get whatever's in front of him out of the way so he can see what's underneath it.
Ah, you mean command-H.
minimizing to the Dock doesn't do this (because once you minimize, you have to do something completely different in order to get your window back,
Yes, as completely different as command-Tabbing back to the application. *Sigh* I guess this just isn't a big deal to those of us who prefer keyboard actions to mouse actions.
I was going to post the same thing and then I RTFA where it says...oh, wait, no it doesn't.
It's hardly worth arguing, since I'm not defending OP's position, but I so hate being misinterpreted. Keep my quote in context:
I assumed differently, namely that he meant that if Paul is for strong national security (answer #1), he would likely, if President, find that he would have to avoid answering, or give misleading answers, to some questions (contradicting answer #2).
That says answer #2 could (hypothetically) be contradicted in the future if adherence to answer #1 required the President to give a misleading answer. It doesn't say answer #1 by itself contains a contradiction, nor does it say that I believed OP was saying #1 contained a contradiction. Here you imply that my statement was somehow about answer #1 either being unclear or containing a contradiction:
What is not clear or is contradictory about "America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight"?
As it turns out, nevurthls (the OP) did explain that he believed answer #1 was, in itself, unclear (not contradictory). This is not what I suggested his intended meaning was. Further, he believes that, by giving an unclear answer to #1, #2 was contradicted (now, not in the future as in my hypothetical). Since he is the one claiming #1 is unclear, I repeat that you should take it up with him.
OK, so you didn't read my post before answering (my post had nothing to do with the clarity or consistency of the first answer). But elsewhere in this thread, the OP has already given his explanation of what he meant, making my comment moot. If you find his post you can argue your point with him.
And what happens if you have no winner? You start the whole process over again? I'd think everyone would be so sick of it by then that nobody would be interested in voting anymore.
Look at the US electorate today. Republicans are a fractured alliance of business interests, paleocons, neocons, and religious extremists. Democrats are a (slightly less) fractured alliance of liberals and "third-way" politicians. Forget about trying to please a majority at this point. If we can find the candidate who is disapproved by the fewest voters, and put him or her in office, that's about all the harmony you're going to get.
You are too used to the classical evasive political ethos. Have some faith that someone, someday, will be both honest AND elected. Just because we've never seen it happen doesn't make it impossible, in the absolute.
I was only trying to suggest a feasible interpretation of the OP. You should direct this at him/her, not me (assuming I interpreted the post correctly).
I assumed differently, namely that he meant that if Paul is for strong national security (answer #1), he would likely, if President, find that he would have to avoid answering, or give misleading answers, to some questions (contradicting answer #2). But we'll have to hope the original poster comes back to answer, 'cause I'm only guessing, too.
Here we go with the scary stories again. Congress does not have the power to invalidate a specific patent. You'd have to change the Constitution for that.
I don't think GP said he was jealous of anyone's success.
Actually, approval voting is exactly what he describes (minus the silly greater-than-zero requirement for a winner). With range voting, you effectively get approval voting, if everyone pushes all of their votes to the extremes. But the problem with range voting, as I see it, is that some people will vote the extremes, but others might only put two candidates at the extremes and put the other candidates somewhere in between, and still others might not vote any of the candidates at the extremes. In a post to another /. story, I called the last two behaviors "false altruism", because they may end up hurting people in the same camp as the voter who thinks he's doing others a favor. So just give me approval voting, plain and simple.
As for GP's greater-than-zero requirement, I think it's misguided. In a deeply divided electorate with three or more factions, it's easy to conceive of a race where no candidate gets more than 50% approval. This isn't a comment on the quality of the candidates -- it could be a comment on the diversity of views, or maybe even voter obstinacy preventing the approval of a compromise candidate.
Hillary helped draw up impeachment documents as a House staffer during Watergate. And she has stated that our current president Bush is the worst president in the history of the country.
So where is that young Hillary Rodham today? Why isn't she calling for impeachment of the worst U.S. president in history?
Since two options are not enough:
C) Single-payer health coverage.