11. Managing Window Size.
. . .
Here's a thought that's simple and solves about 80% of the problem. What if Apple made both lower corners of Mac windows draggable? What if all four corners were? Either of those minor improvements would be quite welcome.
How about regular click an edge to move the entire window, and control-click-drag anywhere on an edge to resize? (or vice versa)
believe Darwin and realize that in order for Darwin to be right, stuff that isn't as well adapted has to die.
Alas, those factors that they failed to adapt to are things that humans are also not adapted to, and likely never will. It may best suit us to see them as the canary in the mineshaft.
but unless those organisms learn to fight back it is curtains for them and more for us.
What was it, again, they failed to fight back against? Good thing for us anyway, since those pesky dolphins were depleting our fish supply. Oh wait, that's us depleting our fish supply.
Can you buy support from Progeny if you've got a Debian system? I looked at their site, and it looked as though they want to build a system for you, then support it.
"It will have the ability to restrict your network access if you have a down-level machine."
That raises some questions. Does this mean that the stack itself on the system in question will place some kind of access restriction? Are they trying to wedge this into layer 4? Have they devised some kind of MS client-server extension to DHCP that sends a data structure to a server which in turn pushes a policy out to the stack? Or is this intended to be part of an 802.1x based scheme?
For those who do not believe in the divinity of the Bible, it has been specualated that the four different tones of the verses (basically, the Keirseian four types) were most likely four different authors (though, they could have been in the same room at the same time). For timing, differing terminologies point infer different time periods.
How does the idea that parts of the OT were written by four different authors and over different time periods somehow validate that the bible was dictated by 'god'?
Incorrect. That's what a modern English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of an Aramiac document writen down by somebody who heard it from someone who heard it from someone says.
Did it go Aramaic -> Greek -> Latin -> English, or was the original language an ancient form of Hebrew? Wouldn't that make it Ancient Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> English -> televangelism?
Leviticus 18:22 by its bare words condemns bisexuality
No it says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Also, Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." That seems to paint things out in fairly unambiguous terms.
And Romans 1:26-28 doesn't refer to anyone going to hell for anything, it refers to people being left manifestly degraded on Earth in the eyes of others
Quite true, although it does make a strong argument for anything other than heterosexuality as a 'sin' (if you subscribe to that idea). Its 1 Cor. 6:9-10 that says they will not 'inherit the kingdom of god' - in the belief system of most christian sects, that just leaves hell (or purgatory - I forget, do people get to choose, or is it like a lottery?).
Secondly, something that many people forget is that the Old Testament is, quite honestly, a Jewish book. In order to be Christian, you don't have to follow the Old Testament; you have to follow JESUS.
Not really, it you read Matt 5:17-19. But, if you choose to interpret Luke 16:16, Eph 2:15, & Rom 7:6 literally, then no, you don't have to follow the OT.
As for claiming that the entire group of Christians has a specific stance on the Bible is particularly naive.
Believing that the bible - any part - is a canon of god or god's instructions on how to live is what's actually naive. Pick any christian sect, and they canonize some part of the bible to fit their tastes. That's just trying to translate personal preferences into divine will - something nearly all christian sects have in common (along with a slew of other religions). That was actually the underlying point.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that non-believers should be made to follow the law
Correct, it doesn't. It says they'll go to hell.
Biblically, you don't get saved by following the law (or rather, you would, but nobody ever manages to keep it 100%). You get saved by following Jesus.
According to your group's interpretation of the collection of literary works that comprise the christian 'bible'. The original authors (the real ones - you know the jews whose 'spiritual' inheritance christians claim a part of) of the vast majority of those literary works (the OT) would disagree with that interpretation to say the very least. Quote the NT to them all you want - they don't believe it is the 'word of god' in the way you do, and they wrote all the parts that christians interpret as validating the divine nature of jesus.
And, for the open minded parent poster above, the christian 'bible' clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 18:22), for which you get to go to hell (Rom. 1:26-28). And I have to wonder, what is gay marriage without gay sex? Don't get me wrong, I applaud such open mindedness, but if you're a christian who believes that every word in the English christian bible was explicitly arranged by god, its pretty hard to reconcile open mindedness about such issues with the 'word of god'.
If it's an issue of morality, then it should be in the hands of the church (as the rules of the church apply only to its followers).
So, if you're not a member of a church, then you're free?
Of how something utterly deficient by design can just put the word 'business' in its name, and get phb's to chase it like fish after a dead worm. If someplace is in a crisis because it has to migrate its critical legacy COBOL application and can't find anyone to do it, well that's just too bad. Chalk another one up to darwin....
FTA:The result? Those who used the virtual camera were better at recalling what it could do. But, they also had significantly more false memories about its abilities.
Newflash: VR can mislead people and give them a false sense of confidence about what they think they know.
One problem is that a pernicious idea has gripped academia which is that somehow the way corporations operate is categorically better for everything - including how to run a university. So, research, publishing, and even teaching are oriented towards a bottom line, giving them at best third-quarter foresight. The strength of an idea on its own merits independent of its profitability is seen as archaic and dysfunctional. Universities all want to be 'corporate', thinking this will somehow improve education. Paying attention to what professors say will help things seems to be falling from favor.
FTA:"There are virtually no products Microsoft produces today that have not either taken technology from research, come directly out of research, or been built using the tools and technologies we've created in research," he says.
Does that include Zune? The Microsoft music service? How much research did it take to come up with 'We need to make our own iPod and music service'?
I gauge my spam intake by looking at my 'held mail' folder at spamcop. At one point a couple of weeks and a few days ago, it was up to over 220 per day (earlier in the year it was about 20 spams a day). For the past week or so, its been at less than fifty per day (today so far its at 30. Normally by this time it was about 150). Something has changed, although my measure may not indicate that spam volume in general has dropped. That's actually interesting to me, because spamcop just catches them and lets me do with them as I wish (I report them).
Motherfucking moron -- read and understand the words. Are you really such a dumb shit that you think wrapping an argument in offensive language is sufficient to deny the truth also included? Do you think there's really a difference between "The sun rose this morning" and "The sun rose this morning, you suppurating bastard"?
Personal attacks indicate that you have so little confidence in what you say that you feel the need to boost your credibility by somehow trying to discredit what someone says by portraying them as motherfucking morons or pus-discharging bastardized dumbshits that nobody should pay attention to. That's why personal attacks do more to discredit the attacker than the attacked.
Besides, if you had bothered to read the original post (assuming you're the A/C to whom I responded in the parent), you'd have realized that your comments, which made an assertion about the illegality of copying and redistributing copyrighted material (to which I actually didn't disagree with in the first place) didn't seem to respond to the subject of the original/. post. Since I didn't really disagree with you in the first place, which words did I not read? Your personal attacks also indicate that your responses are more about a little hurt pride than an actually logical or rational point of some kind. After all, I didn't really disagree with you.
I just pointed out that the actual/. post was about how the CEO got off with nothing, while your comment prattled on about how illegal copying copyrighted material was. If you really believed that, I'd think you'd be upset that the CEO's kids basically got away with it publicly, not that somebody pointed out how your post didn't address the subject of the original/. story.
Reminds me of the time I loaned a thinkpad running ubuntu to a roomate of mine, who I would say was a garden variety computer user. She had no idea what linux or ubuntu was. I showed her how to launch firefox and openoffice. She was working on term papers that same day, no need for me to do anything at all. That said, I still think even ubuntu has some ground to cover when it comes to interoperability with windows and I do think that ground will have to be covered in the desktop arena by linux rather then MS (who won't/can't do it). Still, it seem that for about 95% or so of the things the average home users does with a computer, the differences between linux and windows seem to be fading fast.
The point is, that without a license to copy, you cannot copy.
I'm not disagreeing with that. The actual point of the original/. post was that the CEO got of scott-free, whilst the rest of us get in fact different treatment. And no, the mother with 5 kids just barely staying afloat being threatened with a lawsuit is not being 'sued the same' as a multi-millianaire CEO who gets of without so much as a 'pay a fine'. We all get the law we can afford.
If you are completely clueless
Ad homimen is admitting you have no meaningful point to make or things to say, and are just flinging insults in place of substantive discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
11. Managing Window Size.
. . .
Here's a thought that's simple and solves about 80% of the problem. What if Apple made both lower corners of Mac windows draggable? What if all four corners were? Either of those minor improvements would be quite welcome.
How about regular click an edge to move the entire window, and control-click-drag anywhere on an edge to resize? (or vice versa)
The internet has made it difficult to run a regime that runs on secrecy. Government is already benefiting.
Coming from BG, that's a good one...
Maybe Steve never told him.
Maybe they just don't sit down together and talk the way they used to...
From BBC headine: "Gates: Digital locks too complex"
I can see how it must seem that way to him.
From Micro Persuasion:
Q) What did you want to be when you grew up?
A) A lawyer.
That explains a lot. A hell of a lot.
believe Darwin and realize that in order for Darwin to be right, stuff that isn't as well adapted has to die.
Alas, those factors that they failed to adapt to are things that humans are also not adapted to, and likely never will. It may best suit us to see them as the canary in the mineshaft.
but unless those organisms learn to fight back it is curtains for them and more for us.
What was it, again, they failed to fight back against? Good thing for us anyway, since those pesky dolphins were depleting our fish supply. Oh wait, that's us depleting our fish supply.
Can you buy support from Progeny if you've got a Debian system? I looked at their site, and it looked as though they want to build a system for you, then support it.
"It will have the ability to restrict your network access if you have a down-level machine."
That raises some questions. Does this mean that the stack itself on the system in question will place some kind of access restriction? Are they trying to wedge this into layer 4? Have they devised some kind of MS client-server extension to DHCP that sends a data structure to a server which in turn pushes a policy out to the stack? Or is this intended to be part of an 802.1x based scheme?
Does MS offer a cd with patches? Even for download (or would that violate DRM/DMCA/DigitalDarkAges laws/technologies)?
I know Apple offers their patches as download, complete with SHA1 sig.
That sex with a crazed adult gorilla was good, would you join in?
Why are Yahoo! and MSN such complex-looking places? Because their systems are easier to use [than Google]
That explains why I always use google...
what was I thinking....
What the best nation-wide wireless provider is. You might get different favorites, but most will say sprint sucks.
For those who do not believe in the divinity of the Bible, it has been specualated that the four different tones of the verses (basically, the Keirseian four types) were most likely four different authors (though, they could have been in the same room at the same time). For timing, differing terminologies point infer different time periods.
How does the idea that parts of the OT were written by four different authors and over different time periods somehow validate that the bible was dictated by 'god'?
Incorrect. That's what a modern English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of an Aramiac document writen down by somebody who heard it from someone who heard it from someone says.
Did it go Aramaic -> Greek -> Latin -> English, or was the original language an ancient form of Hebrew? Wouldn't that make it Ancient Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> English -> televangelism?
Leviticus 18:22 by its bare words condemns bisexuality
No it says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Also, Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." That seems to paint things out in fairly unambiguous terms.
And Romans 1:26-28 doesn't refer to anyone going to hell for anything, it refers to people being left manifestly degraded on Earth in the eyes of others
Quite true, although it does make a strong argument for anything other than heterosexuality as a 'sin' (if you subscribe to that idea). Its 1 Cor. 6:9-10 that says they will not 'inherit the kingdom of god' - in the belief system of most christian sects, that just leaves hell (or purgatory - I forget, do people get to choose, or is it like a lottery?).
Secondly, something that many people forget is that the Old Testament is, quite honestly, a Jewish book. In order to be Christian, you don't have to follow the Old Testament; you have to follow JESUS.
Not really, it you read Matt 5:17-19. But, if you choose to interpret Luke 16:16, Eph 2:15, & Rom 7:6 literally, then no, you don't have to follow the OT.
As for claiming that the entire group of Christians has a specific stance on the Bible is particularly naive.
Believing that the bible - any part - is a canon of god or god's instructions on how to live is what's actually naive. Pick any christian sect, and they canonize some part of the bible to fit their tastes. That's just trying to translate personal preferences into divine will - something nearly all christian sects have in common (along with a slew of other religions). That was actually the underlying point.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that non-believers should be made to follow the law
Correct, it doesn't. It says they'll go to hell.
Biblically, you don't get saved by following the law (or rather, you would, but nobody ever manages to keep it 100%). You get saved by following Jesus.
According to your group's interpretation of the collection of literary works that comprise the christian 'bible'. The original authors (the real ones - you know the jews whose 'spiritual' inheritance christians claim a part of) of the vast majority of those literary works (the OT) would disagree with that interpretation to say the very least. Quote the NT to them all you want - they don't believe it is the 'word of god' in the way you do, and they wrote all the parts that christians interpret as validating the divine nature of jesus.
And, for the open minded parent poster above, the christian 'bible' clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 18:22), for which you get to go to hell (Rom. 1:26-28). And I have to wonder, what is gay marriage without gay sex? Don't get me wrong, I applaud such open mindedness, but if you're a christian who believes that every word in the English christian bible was explicitly arranged by god, its pretty hard to reconcile open mindedness about such issues with the 'word of god'.
If it's an issue of morality, then it should be in the hands of the church (as the rules of the church apply only to its followers).
So, if you're not a member of a church, then you're free?
Of how something utterly deficient by design can just put the word 'business' in its name, and get phb's to chase it like fish after a dead worm. If someplace is in a crisis because it has to migrate its critical legacy COBOL application and can't find anyone to do it, well that's just too bad. Chalk another one up to darwin....
FreeTerrorReport.com isn't taken - who wants it?
FTA:The result? Those who used the virtual camera were better at recalling what it could do. But, they also had significantly more false memories about its abilities.
Newflash: VR can mislead people and give them a false sense of confidence about what they think they know.
One problem is that a pernicious idea has gripped academia which is that somehow the way corporations operate is categorically better for everything - including how to run a university. So, research, publishing, and even teaching are oriented towards a bottom line, giving them at best third-quarter foresight. The strength of an idea on its own merits independent of its profitability is seen as archaic and dysfunctional. Universities all want to be 'corporate', thinking this will somehow improve education. Paying attention to what professors say will help things seems to be falling from favor.
FTA:"There are virtually no products Microsoft produces today that have not either taken technology from research, come directly out of research, or been built using the tools and technologies we've created in research," he says.
Does that include Zune? The Microsoft music service? How much research did it take to come up with 'We need to make our own iPod and music service'?
Flame On...
I gauge my spam intake by looking at my 'held mail' folder at spamcop. At one point a couple of weeks and a few days ago, it was up to over 220 per day (earlier in the year it was about 20 spams a day). For the past week or so, its been at less than fifty per day (today so far its at 30. Normally by this time it was about 150). Something has changed, although my measure may not indicate that spam volume in general has dropped. That's actually interesting to me, because spamcop just catches them and lets me do with them as I wish (I report them).
Motherfucking moron -- read and understand the words. Are you really such a dumb shit that you think wrapping an argument in offensive language is sufficient to deny the truth also included? Do you think there's really a difference between "The sun rose this morning" and "The sun rose this morning, you suppurating bastard"?
/. post. Since I didn't really disagree with you in the first place, which words did I not read? Your personal attacks also indicate that your responses are more about a little hurt pride than an actually logical or rational point of some kind. After all, I didn't really disagree with you.
/. post was about how the CEO got off with nothing, while your comment prattled on about how illegal copying copyrighted material was. If you really believed that, I'd think you'd be upset that the CEO's kids basically got away with it publicly, not that somebody pointed out how your post didn't address the subject of the original /. story.
Personal attacks indicate that you have so little confidence in what you say that you feel the need to boost your credibility by somehow trying to discredit what someone says by portraying them as motherfucking morons or pus-discharging bastardized dumbshits that nobody should pay attention to. That's why personal attacks do more to discredit the attacker than the attacked.
Besides, if you had bothered to read the original post (assuming you're the A/C to whom I responded in the parent), you'd have realized that your comments, which made an assertion about the illegality of copying and redistributing copyrighted material (to which I actually didn't disagree with in the first place) didn't seem to respond to the subject of the original
I just pointed out that the actual
Reminds me of the time I loaned a thinkpad running ubuntu to a roomate of mine, who I would say was a garden variety computer user. She had no idea what linux or ubuntu was. I showed her how to launch firefox and openoffice. She was working on term papers that same day, no need for me to do anything at all. That said, I still think even ubuntu has some ground to cover when it comes to interoperability with windows and I do think that ground will have to be covered in the desktop arena by linux rather then MS (who won't/can't do it). Still, it seem that for about 95% or so of the things the average home users does with a computer, the differences between linux and windows seem to be fading fast.
The point is, that without a license to copy, you cannot copy.
/. post was that the CEO got of scott-free, whilst the rest of us get in fact different treatment. And no, the mother with 5 kids just barely staying afloat being threatened with a lawsuit is not being 'sued the same' as a multi-millianaire CEO who gets of without so much as a 'pay a fine'. We all get the law we can afford.
I'm not disagreeing with that. The actual point of the original
If you are completely clueless
Ad homimen is admitting you have no meaningful point to make or things to say, and are just flinging insults in place of substantive discussion.