Is it not possible that God be made of matter? We are after all "made in his image". Science does not rely on the belief that all that can't be measured does not exist. It is simply a field of study that concentrates on that which can be measured. Science cannot disprove the existence of God anymore than the bible can disprove the existence of the Higgs Boson particle. You seem intent on pushing science as being related to the philosophy of materialism when the official stance from the scientific world is that they cannot measure those things, which by definition cannot be measured.
Here's one. How about time sensitivity? I know someone who has a picture of one her friends with a hit of acid on her tongue. The picture is YEARS (more than five, if you're inclined to ask) old and in no way representative of who she is now. Funny thing though, most folks have no idea what that picture is of.
Mod parent up. I don't know why this argument keeps coming up. You cannot sell software that breaks encryption, it is however, legal to own and use. This was the ruling the judge came up with during the 3-2-1 case.
I got a copy of the farmer's almanac, looked for the first freeze in Florida and purchased OJ a week prior. It worked like a charm, but got my thought processes off in a direction that was really not healthy.
Looks like trading volume doubled right before the dive. The whole thing from the start of the crash to the freeze on trading was only ten minutes and by the time it was frozen about half the losses had already been made back. Kinda interesting.
You don't have to defend yourself. Technical trading is the only way to go. I lost money in the commodities market because I had deviated from my original plan. I was buying nothing but put options on the eurodollar, just "knowing" that they wouldn't cut interest rates again. Then 9-11 hit and Greenspan came out 3 days later cutting interest rates again. (still have the charts from the month following 9-11) I was chasing a news story instead of sticking to the numbers, it cost me. I made my savings back just in time to get sued, at which point I had to close my account. Then of course my wife wanted a divorce, and my best friend started sleeping with my dog, blahblahblah. Anyways, long story short why don't you use options to trade accounts like oil and corn?
I'm curious about the trading bots. Were the trading bots dumping the stock in 2002? So, if this story were *current* would the bots have simply destroyed UA?
Re:Classic Quest for Glory is out
on
Quests
·
· Score: 1
Text user interfaces (TUI) share with GUIs their use of the entire screen area and exposure of available commands through widgets like form entry and menus. However, TUIs only use text and symbols available on a typical text terminal, while GUIs typically use high resolution graphics modes. This allows the GUI to present more detailed information and fine-grained direct manipulation.
But if I gave a shit about wikipedia (I do, but not enough to edit) I'd re-write that last line to say
This allows the GUI to present more detailed information and fine-grained direct manipulation of images.
the article goes on to mention usability in other places, comments are definitely made about GUI designers' dedication to implementing usability studies, but nowhere is it said that GUIs are inherently more usable than CLIs.
Incorrect, given Microsoft just recently redesigned the user interface for their two top products, Windows and Office, even these "gold standards" have much room for improvement.
one of the ways Microsoft improved their usability in Windows was by adding a text driven interface: the search bar; used to replace a hierarchical TUI.
I'd settle for "GUIs have usability strengths where CLIs have usability weaknesses and vice versa", but I won't concede that GUIs are more "usable" than CLIs.
The difference (to me) is largely a question of literacy or illiteracy. I believe that the definitions of "usable or user-friendly" are quite different when one is literate or illiterate. As an example, you can ask a young child (pre-reader) to grab a can of peas. You cannot ask them to grab a can of peas with no salt. The higher the level of skill the more demanding the needs of the user, the more the definition of usable and user-friendly change. The picture might be easier or more universal, but it will rarely be as usable or user-friendly as an established language. (Note: simply pasting a picture of salt on the can does not elaborate as to how much salt is contained or even if it is salt rather than sugar.)
die? I think a lot of them would just like Microsoft to die. I mean I really don't want them developing shit, not if that means they can affect change within the community. Honestly, the one thing Microsoft wants (control) is the last thing FOSS was designed to provide. What can Microsoft do that will make me happy? Leave shit the fuck alone.
"I find working from a command line to be the most efficient way to get things done"
Which puts you in a very small minority, and disqualifies you from making any useful observations about usability in general.
So, any program interface that uses the command line is either *done* as far as improving usability or it's just a stupid idea to think a CLI is usable?
...consistency..., information organization, and display, discoverability of core features, support for internationalization, localization and accessability
I don't see how any of these listed items can't be applied to a CLI program. Basically, I think you're using consistency as a crutch to bypass usability on the command line altogether. And if not, you've certainly presented yourself that way.
No seriously, if you're a cop that's the sportiest comment I've read in a long time. That said, I think cops have a tremendous job. I can't imagine the weight of some of the decisions they have to make, or the crazy bullshit they have to deal with, not to mention the fact the job is about dealing with people and their fucking problems. Hell I can't even say the system we have doesn't work, if we made the police get law degrees as a minimum requirement, there would be fewer police, they would be slower to respond, and when one of them got on your ass you'd pretty much be completely fucked.
Ok so that sounds kind of extreme. Let me explain another way. I've been pulled over for traffic violations and let go, no biggie. A cops' wife gets stopped and let go, then it's a conspiracy. There's other stuff, like cops can lie to you, many people have problems with that.
seriously, fuck off, nah I'm being funny. anyways it's a tough question: How do you mix anonymity and accountability without compromising either?
As far as the girls go, I think they have every right in the world to be pissed off. I haven't RTFA, but from what I've read, if someone talked to me like that I'd be fucking livid. Sensitivity to violence/abuse plays big here. A little razzing from a troll is fine, but threats of violence are pretty big for a lot of people, particularly women. Personally, I hope they are a couple of brilliant, rich kids, that will pour their resources into this and find something equitable to live with.
I assume that any cop with five years or more in the field has broken the law in the line of duty more times than they can count. It doesn't mean they are bad people, but if you go to work at the zoo, eventually you're going to step in shit. So, yes I can say that what I consider a good cop, has probably been wrapped up in some conspiracy or another.
Once again, I would like to see proof that "a good portion" of officers rarely think and are abusive and incompetent.
The proof you're looking for is typically referred to as evidence and the guilty are charged with guarding it. Interesting that cameras are typically frowned upon when in the hands of the public.
I have worked with law enforcement for many years and have not found this to be the case. I would like to see proof behind this assertion.
You're likely smarter than most of them. I don't know what you do, but I'm certain you have no idea which officers have hit their wives, driven drunk, visited prostitutes while on the job, used their status to bully other people, etc. and so on.
Another way of putting this. Let's say I hook up with a woman and her ex-boyfriend is an abusive cop/stalker. He finds out about me and pulls me over planting weed in my car. Where the fuck is the evidence that he is acting in a criminal manner? Again I don't know what you work with the police for, but I'd expect my cop/stalker to thoroughly sanitize anything that moves between departments.
I am not saying that every officer out there is an angel or is a shining example of society, but you cannot base your opinion of all police officers based on a handful of your own experiences or on a handful of publicized accounts of police brutality.
I'm not saying all cops are bad apples. I'm saying that police work tends to attract guys that like to think they are good at "KICKING ASS". Which is nothing really bad, just that guys that tend to be good at kicking ass usually learn it somewhere other than police academy. Sometimes they are pretty good at kicking their wives' and kids' asses just as well as the bad guys. They tend to be good liars, so they don't get in trouble for kicking ass, they also tend to be excellent manipulators, all of this generally leads to an officer that can look quite good on paper and in daily operations. The good cops, god bless them, have to deal with these assholes. That means when a good cop fudges something to throw a serial killer away, the bad cop says "let me visit this prostitute or else I'll leak your fudged evidence". This is how one bad apple spoils the bunch.
Really, what I'd like to get across more than anything, is that cops are NOT hired for their brains. They are hired to shoot, arrest, detain, question, collect evidence, fight, stalk, lie, and intimidate people. Their thinking requirements are mostly along the lines of "collect this without damaging it". They are given nearly unlimited power with regards to enforcing the law, but they are generally not expected to interpret it (that's what lawyers and judges do). Now, you might say that cops do a lot more than the list I've just posted, but I'm talking about the minimum requirements. I've described the typical skittish "rookie", anything having to do with ethics, interpreting the law, judging right and wrong, being fair, being socially responsible, using restraint, and serving the public; is above the minimum requirement for becoming a police officer.
Cops are basically soldiers, they learn just enough of the law to get into trouble. They enforce a standard they are not required to fully understand, for this to work they must be immune to the standard.
I video taped an ex-cop telling me that he had the right to confiscate my camera, arrest me, and otherwise act like he was still a cop. He was basically impersonating a police officer on film. (this guy's a total psychopath btw, vigilantism never made so much sense) A cop I had always believed to be good showed up when he called. Fortunately, I was calling the state police department to make a complaint. There is nothing wrong with contacting the state police when you believe the locals are acting in a criminal manner (be firm and coherent about your argument). Regardless, my recording was deleted when confiscated, and there was eventually nothing for me to press charges with. I was basically told to drop it or they would file more charges against me. Basically, I think your uncle was probably a fine fellow. The "good" local cop I dealt with has ultimately done a *lot* for my community, but the cronyism you're seeing will not go away, even though those police officers are effectively covering up a *MURDER*.
Just because it does happen doesn't mean that every cop is a bad officer.
Yes, it pretty much does. If my neighbor were a murdering psychopath, I'd be arrested for knowing about it and not saying anything. Police departments routinely have assholes sign up, simply because they want to be a professional asshole for the rest of their lives. The "good" cops often wind up covering for these pieces of shit and otherwise enabling them, because cops all have a tendency to believe that they are always right and the suspect is always wrong.
Fuck cops. Seriously, you have no fucking idea. It's a two way street you say? Why is it that the police are allowed to film you while you get the shit beat out of you for filming? What purpose does a civilian have for filming the police other than self defense? If the civilian is just trying to protect themselves why are the police so threatened? Is it because a good portion of them are inept, abusive, and generally incompetent? Thinking men know that might does not make right, police officers are *rarely* thinking men.
I haven't read the article, but the summary states "most software patents" and gives 'result in a physical transformation of an article', so what does this describe?
Slashdot Mirror
god i wish you were smarter
Is it not possible that God be made of matter? We are after all "made in his image". Science does not rely on the belief that all that can't be measured does not exist. It is simply a field of study that concentrates on that which can be measured. Science cannot disprove the existence of God anymore than the bible can disprove the existence of the Higgs Boson particle. You seem intent on pushing science as being related to the philosophy of materialism when the official stance from the scientific world is that they cannot measure those things, which by definition cannot be measured.
thrush, hah how about a halloween costume?
hard to pronounce names, so they are the only ones that come up in a search? Cause you know "John Smith" ain't got this damn problem.
and you call yourself a hyppy...
what about someone that smokes salvia on youtube?
I'm of the opinion that in 10-20 years it won't really matter, cause EVERYONE will have something embarrassing online somewhere.
Here's one. How about time sensitivity? I know someone who has a picture of one her friends with a hit of acid on her tongue. The picture is YEARS (more than five, if you're inclined to ask) old and in no way representative of who she is now. Funny thing though, most folks have no idea what that picture is of.
Mod parent up. I don't know why this argument keeps coming up. You cannot sell software that breaks encryption, it is however, legal to own and use. This was the ruling the judge came up with during the 3-2-1 case.
FWIW - here's how I was seduced:
I got a copy of the farmer's almanac, looked for the first freeze in Florida and purchased OJ a week prior. It worked like a charm, but got my thought processes off in a direction that was really not healthy.
Looks like trading volume doubled right before the dive. The whole thing from the start of the crash to the freeze on trading was only ten minutes and by the time it was frozen about half the losses had already been made back. Kinda interesting.
You don't have to defend yourself. Technical trading is the only way to go. I lost money in the commodities market because I had deviated from my original plan. I was buying nothing but put options on the eurodollar, just "knowing" that they wouldn't cut interest rates again. Then 9-11 hit and Greenspan came out 3 days later cutting interest rates again. (still have the charts from the month following 9-11) I was chasing a news story instead of sticking to the numbers, it cost me. I made my savings back just in time to get sued, at which point I had to close my account. Then of course my wife wanted a divorce, and my best friend started sleeping with my dog, blahblahblah. Anyways, long story short why don't you use options to trade accounts like oil and corn?
I'm curious about the trading bots. Were the trading bots dumping the stock in 2002? So, if this story were *current* would the bots have simply destroyed UA?
What? You never played leisure suit larry?
I find references to neither CLI or GUI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_line_interface
No mention of usability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface
Here I find this
Text user interfaces (TUI) share with GUIs their use of the entire screen area and exposure of available commands through widgets like form entry and menus. However, TUIs only use text and symbols available on a typical text terminal, while GUIs typically use high resolution graphics modes. This allows the GUI to present more detailed information and fine-grained direct manipulation.
But if I gave a shit about wikipedia (I do, but not enough to edit) I'd re-write that last line to say
This allows the GUI to present more detailed information and fine-grained direct manipulation of images .
the article goes on to mention usability in other places, comments are definitely made about GUI designers' dedication to implementing usability studies, but nowhere is it said that GUIs are inherently more usable than CLIs.
Incorrect, given Microsoft just recently redesigned the user interface for their two top products, Windows and Office, even these "gold standards" have much room for improvement.
one of the ways Microsoft improved their usability in Windows was by adding a text driven interface: the search bar; used to replace a hierarchical TUI.
I'd settle for "GUIs have usability strengths where CLIs have usability weaknesses and vice versa", but I won't concede that GUIs are more "usable" than CLIs.
The difference (to me) is largely a question of literacy or illiteracy. I believe that the definitions of "usable or user-friendly" are quite different when one is literate or illiterate. As an example, you can ask a young child (pre-reader) to grab a can of peas. You cannot ask them to grab a can of peas with no salt. The higher the level of skill the more demanding the needs of the user, the more the definition of usable and user-friendly change. The picture might be easier or more universal, but it will rarely be as usable or user-friendly as an established language. (Note: simply pasting a picture of salt on the can does not elaborate as to how much salt is contained or even if it is salt rather than sugar.)
die? I think a lot of them would just like Microsoft to die. I mean I really don't want them developing shit, not if that means they can affect change within the community. Honestly, the one thing Microsoft wants (control) is the last thing FOSS was designed to provide. What can Microsoft do that will make me happy? Leave shit the fuck alone.
"I find working from a command line to be the most efficient way to get things done"
Which puts you in a very small minority, and disqualifies you from making any useful observations about usability in general.
So, any program interface that uses the command line is either *done* as far as improving usability or it's just a stupid idea to think a CLI is usable?
...consistency..., information organization, and display, discoverability of core features, support for internationalization, localization and accessability
I don't see how any of these listed items can't be applied to a CLI program. Basically, I think you're using consistency as a crutch to bypass usability on the command line altogether. And if not, you've certainly presented yourself that way.
No seriously, if you're a cop that's the sportiest comment I've read in a long time. That said, I think cops have a tremendous job. I can't imagine the weight of some of the decisions they have to make, or the crazy bullshit they have to deal with, not to mention the fact the job is about dealing with people and their fucking problems. Hell I can't even say the system we have doesn't work, if we made the police get law degrees as a minimum requirement, there would be fewer police, they would be slower to respond, and when one of them got on your ass you'd pretty much be completely fucked.
Ok so that sounds kind of extreme. Let me explain another way. I've been pulled over for traffic violations and let go, no biggie. A cops' wife gets stopped and let go, then it's a conspiracy. There's other stuff, like cops can lie to you, many people have problems with that.
seriously, fuck off, nah I'm being funny. anyways it's a tough question: How do you mix anonymity and accountability without compromising either?
As far as the girls go, I think they have every right in the world to be pissed off. I haven't RTFA, but from what I've read, if someone talked to me like that I'd be fucking livid. Sensitivity to violence/abuse plays big here. A little razzing from a troll is fine, but threats of violence are pretty big for a lot of people, particularly women. Personally, I hope they are a couple of brilliant, rich kids, that will pour their resources into this and find something equitable to live with.
It's about time a police officer provided their input. :)
I assume that any cop with five years or more in the field has broken the law in the line of duty more times than they can count. It doesn't mean they are bad people, but if you go to work at the zoo, eventually you're going to step in shit. So, yes I can say that what I consider a good cop, has probably been wrapped up in some conspiracy or another.
Once again, I would like to see proof that "a good portion" of officers rarely think and are abusive and incompetent.
The proof you're looking for is typically referred to as evidence and the guilty are charged with guarding it. Interesting that cameras are typically frowned upon when in the hands of the public.
I have worked with law enforcement for many years and have not found this to be the case. I would like to see proof behind this assertion.
You're likely smarter than most of them. I don't know what you do, but I'm certain you have no idea which officers have hit their wives, driven drunk, visited prostitutes while on the job, used their status to bully other people, etc. and so on.
Another way of putting this. Let's say I hook up with a woman and her ex-boyfriend is an abusive cop/stalker. He finds out about me and pulls me over planting weed in my car. Where the fuck is the evidence that he is acting in a criminal manner? Again I don't know what you work with the police for, but I'd expect my cop/stalker to thoroughly sanitize anything that moves between departments.
I am not saying that every officer out there is an angel or is a shining example of society, but you cannot base your opinion of all police officers based on a handful of your own experiences or on a handful of publicized accounts of police brutality.
I'm not saying all cops are bad apples. I'm saying that police work tends to attract guys that like to think they are good at "KICKING ASS". Which is nothing really bad, just that guys that tend to be good at kicking ass usually learn it somewhere other than police academy. Sometimes they are pretty good at kicking their wives' and kids' asses just as well as the bad guys. They tend to be good liars, so they don't get in trouble for kicking ass, they also tend to be excellent manipulators, all of this generally leads to an officer that can look quite good on paper and in daily operations. The good cops, god bless them, have to deal with these assholes. That means when a good cop fudges something to throw a serial killer away, the bad cop says "let me visit this prostitute or else I'll leak your fudged evidence". This is how one bad apple spoils the bunch.
Really, what I'd like to get across more than anything, is that cops are NOT hired for their brains. They are hired to shoot, arrest, detain, question, collect evidence, fight, stalk, lie, and intimidate people. Their thinking requirements are mostly along the lines of "collect this without damaging it". They are given nearly unlimited power with regards to enforcing the law, but they are generally not expected to interpret it (that's what lawyers and judges do). Now, you might say that cops do a lot more than the list I've just posted, but I'm talking about the minimum requirements. I've described the typical skittish "rookie", anything having to do with ethics, interpreting the law, judging right and wrong, being fair, being socially responsible, using restraint, and serving the public; is above the minimum requirement for becoming a police officer.
Cops are basically soldiers, they learn just enough of the law to get into trouble. They enforce a standard they are not required to fully understand, for this to work they must be immune to the standard.
I video taped an ex-cop telling me that he had the right to confiscate my camera, arrest me, and otherwise act like he was still a cop. He was basically impersonating a police officer on film. (this guy's a total psychopath btw, vigilantism never made so much sense) A cop I had always believed to be good showed up when he called. Fortunately, I was calling the state police department to make a complaint. There is nothing wrong with contacting the state police when you believe the locals are acting in a criminal manner (be firm and coherent about your argument). Regardless, my recording was deleted when confiscated, and there was eventually nothing for me to press charges with. I was basically told to drop it or they would file more charges against me. Basically, I think your uncle was probably a fine fellow. The "good" local cop I dealt with has ultimately done a *lot* for my community, but the cronyism you're seeing will not go away, even though those police officers are effectively covering up a *MURDER*.
Just because it does happen doesn't mean that every cop is a bad officer.
Yes, it pretty much does. If my neighbor were a murdering psychopath, I'd be arrested for knowing about it and not saying anything. Police departments routinely have assholes sign up, simply because they want to be a professional asshole for the rest of their lives. The "good" cops often wind up covering for these pieces of shit and otherwise enabling them, because cops all have a tendency to believe that they are always right and the suspect is always wrong.
Fuck cops. Seriously, you have no fucking idea. It's a two way street you say? Why is it that the police are allowed to film you while you get the shit beat out of you for filming? What purpose does a civilian have for filming the police other than self defense? If the civilian is just trying to protect themselves why are the police so threatened? Is it because a good portion of them are inept, abusive, and generally incompetent? Thinking men know that might does not make right, police officers are *rarely* thinking men.
I haven't read the article, but the summary states "most software patents" and gives 'result in a physical transformation of an article', so what does this describe?