Well, I wasn't talking about reasonable doubt in a letter of the law, "this will get them off" sense -- more like the spirit of the law sense, in which it's not right to accuse someone unless you can be reasonably sure it was them. Regardless, I don't care whether you refer to guilt as guilt or "legal responsibility". Either way, someone's life would be ruined for sharing.
This is where tools like project management, to do lists and calendars are helpful for me. If everything is done in 10% of the alloted time, then you're alloting far too much time to a task -- probably because you're used to procrastinating, and therefore spending too much time over a task.
I agree 100% that we don't have to be productive all the time, and that it's good to be lazy (see "The Importance of Living", by Lin Yutang, on this topic and related ones). But, if we take care not to mix our ideas of work with our ideas of idleness, I think we can both be more productive, and have more stress-free leisure time.
Stallman is mainly concerned with Freedom, not privacy. The two do happen to overlap, of course, but there's no reason to insult the man for caring, and for being aware of the issues. That's why most of us are here talking about it. Also, what Stallman seems "paranoid" about generally turns out to be the reality of the situation just a few years down the line. The man is a visionary, not a quack. The success of the Free Software movement, Open Source, and Linux, and the attempted corporate dominance of Internet Explorer, Microsoft, and others are all here as evidence of Stallman's deep understanding. Probably best not to deride the guy who's kept your online world sane, huh?;)
Setting that aside and addressing the article itself, I would point out that privacy is always a trade-off with ease of use. Regardless of what the ideal level of privacy is, we do need good privacy, which few of us have achieved. Real security and privacy is hard, and you're far more likely to run into usability issues before you run into overkill issues.
So, I think it basically boils down to this: implement the best security and privacy you can reasonably expect yourself to keep up without getting lazy.
Don't forget that music has existed for MUCH longer than music corporations. Music goes right back to the dawn of civilisation, when people would sit around a campfire with a bone flute. I can't tell you how society worked back then, but they almost certainly were sharing music, playing off each other and improvising new music through social influence, and generally thinking of music as a social and cooperative thing, rather than an economic thing.
There really is no reason that I can see for music to be an economic thing, any more than conversation is, unless it's somehow impossible to obtain otherwise. At the moment, it's NOT impossible to obtain otherwise, and there is the very reason that big media wants to create DRM. Not to protect rights, and not to enforce laws -- quite simply, to go back to the most limited time in music, where the demand for music outstripped supply due to communications bottlenecks. Big media is simply about the past.
Sometimes mental conflict can be interesting
on
Free P2P In France?
·
· Score: 1
I know you're only joking, but it's worth noting here that the conflict you're joking about is a good indicator. Due to the disagreements over Iraq, the current US societal expectation is that French ideas will be rejected. And yet, here we have something the French are doing that many of us agree with, and believe is good.
Now, it would be a fallacy to assume that because the French do one good thing, that everything they do must be good. I'm not saying that. But, there is a relationship -- a shared outlook -- between the French view of social issues like P2P, and their view of how one country should treat another.
So, I find this sort of conflict interesting -- not just in this situation, but in any where it arises. We have this societal expectation, and yet something else we believe in strongly or understand better tells us that the expectation might be wrong. From there, we can re-examine our social conditioning, and question what we were raised to believe.
Obvious stuff, perhaps, but in these days of people telling us that sharing is piracy, I think it's good to notice the conflict between our society and our hearts.
Except that, on the net, this really does happen. People take over other's computers all the time, to host porn sites, warez sites, to use them as hops/storage on the way to another computer, and for all sorts of other crap. There's really no reason to assume that someone is guilty for having files on their computer with the net as it is today, and security as it is today.
This is the other problem with people assuming fixed-size screens: not everyone maximises their browser. It's perfectly possible to have two browser windows on screen, or to be viewing your browser window inside a split-panel view from your news aggregator, as I'm doing right now. Assuming screen size is just naïve.
The whole point of HTML is that it doesn't matter what size of screen the viewer has. You set fonts relative to normal, and it just works, because the user can set what they want to be "normal" on their screen.
Likewise, it's possible to design graphics that scale using combinations of repeating patterns and static elements, and it's possible to specify sizes in percentages of the total size, rather than, for example, in pixels.
All this "designed for 1024x768" or whatever is just a sign of bad workmanship or novicehood.
We all know AOL has been bad for the net in some ways, but there is at least one good thing we can say about it. That is, it's the only company that held its own against Microsoft's attempts to dominate the IM world. Thankfully, they may have just held on long enough for Google to get the Jabber ball rolling at last.
Of course the PR girl is a hottie. Even in a coding company, PR people aren't hired for their coding skills you know;)
But, considering that she works for Opera, and *still* uses an MS Hotmail email account, she doesn't even get the fight she's involved in. Personally, apart from thanks for somehow being involved in holding back a monopoly, I can't think of much I'd want to say to the girl.
Python code runs parallel to 3D engine
on
Guido Goes Google
·
· Score: 1
Agreed on all points but one. Well said:)
The point where I would change something is... you added the 3D rendering time onto the python control code's time. But, these will run in parallel. You can tell the 3D card to render all that stuff, while the python (or any other) code is handling input events, doing AI, etc.
Basically, LSCM unwrapping lets you "skin" a model (not in the 3D skinning sense, but in the animal skinning sense) so you end up with a flat covering. Actually, the method is similar too -- just mark the "seems" where you would cut with a knife to remove the skin in one piece.
Then, you can export that covering to a paint program, draw on it, and put it back on your model:)
Well said. In the end, Ruby is just a MVC and ORM web framework, along with a little bit of code generation to get you started. That's basically all good, though:)
On that note, it's worth mentioning the Python equivalent of RoR, since the poster mentioned a python background. Django is probably the best place to look for an MVC/ORM (web) framework in Python, if you're interested in trying it.
Ermm, you're forgetting that he is one of the masses too. No one is particularly anonymous. Nor is he special enough that his entries wouldn't be changed if others thought they were wrong. So, he's just another peer, contributing to a great site. Nothing new there for Wikipedia:)
Part of society? yes. Society? No. I'm already aware of what's necessary. You, and others here are not. Until more members of our society see it that way, nothing will change, no matter what individuals want. So, I'm doing my part just by talking about it? What are you doing, except trying to be awkward?
Well, actions don't become right just because they could be worse. And actually, I think Microsoft has pretty much done everything it could get away with, whenever it stood to gain from it, regardless of the social consequences.
Well, what you say is true, in a sense. For one thing, there are of course visual art programs that blind people are unlikely to be interested in. There's little or no point in making those accessible to THOSE disabled users.
If it happens that other disabled users WANT to use it however, and have some difficulties due to design, then that should obviously be fixed. The article is about dexterity issues, which can easily be solved by allowing different input methods, as an older version did.
The big issue though, is that people simply being dismissive of disabled users' needs. There is absolutely no reason why, if a user (disabled or not) wants to be able to control a piece of software, that input methods cannot be devised to allow this. So, when I say all programs, I mean all programs that disabled users might want to use, but that IS much closer to ALL programs than a handful, and I really think we need to think of accessibility as a default, rather than an exception.
On high-contrast, high-feedback, low-skill, etc... Again, if a user wants to play such a game, they are likely to believe that they could do it, if the input and feedback only suited them. This could easily be catered for with different UI modes, tilesets, etc. Most user interfaces, even in games, are becoming much more dynamic, using scalable graphics and high-level input APIs rather than bitmaps and raw joystick access. So it's definitely doable. And, yes, I think any cost involved in that extra mode should be part of the overall cost for all members of society who play the game. We're all in this social thing together.
Yes, well, you're talking about stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, presumably because you don't have an argument related to what I'm talking about. So, I'll leave it here.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I wasn't talking about reasonable doubt in a letter of the law, "this will get them off" sense -- more like the spirit of the law sense, in which it's not right to accuse someone unless you can be reasonably sure it was them. Regardless, I don't care whether you refer to guilt as guilt or "legal responsibility". Either way, someone's life would be ruined for sharing.
This is where tools like project management, to do lists and calendars are helpful for me. If everything is done in 10% of the alloted time, then you're alloting far too much time to a task -- probably because you're used to procrastinating, and therefore spending too much time over a task.
I agree 100% that we don't have to be productive all the time, and that it's good to be lazy (see "The Importance of Living", by Lin Yutang, on this topic and related ones). But, if we take care not to mix our ideas of work with our ideas of idleness, I think we can both be more productive, and have more stress-free leisure time.
Stallman is mainly concerned with Freedom, not privacy. The two do happen to overlap, of course, but there's no reason to insult the man for caring, and for being aware of the issues. That's why most of us are here talking about it. Also, what Stallman seems "paranoid" about generally turns out to be the reality of the situation just a few years down the line. The man is a visionary, not a quack. The success of the Free Software movement, Open Source, and Linux, and the attempted corporate dominance of Internet Explorer, Microsoft, and others are all here as evidence of Stallman's deep understanding. Probably best not to deride the guy who's kept your online world sane, huh? ;)
Setting that aside and addressing the article itself, I would point out that privacy is always a trade-off with ease of use. Regardless of what the ideal level of privacy is, we do need good privacy, which few of us have achieved. Real security and privacy is hard, and you're far more likely to run into usability issues before you run into overkill issues.
So, I think it basically boils down to this: implement the best security and privacy you can reasonably expect yourself to keep up without getting lazy.
Don't forget that music has existed for MUCH longer than music corporations. Music goes right back to the dawn of civilisation, when people would sit around a campfire with a bone flute. I can't tell you how society worked back then, but they almost certainly were sharing music, playing off each other and improvising new music through social influence, and generally thinking of music as a social and cooperative thing, rather than an economic thing.
There really is no reason that I can see for music to be an economic thing, any more than conversation is, unless it's somehow impossible to obtain otherwise. At the moment, it's NOT impossible to obtain otherwise, and there is the very reason that big media wants to create DRM. Not to protect rights, and not to enforce laws -- quite simply, to go back to the most limited time in music, where the demand for music outstripped supply due to communications bottlenecks. Big media is simply about the past.
I know you're only joking, but it's worth noting here that the conflict you're joking about is a good indicator. Due to the disagreements over Iraq, the current US societal expectation is that French ideas will be rejected. And yet, here we have something the French are doing that many of us agree with, and believe is good.
Now, it would be a fallacy to assume that because the French do one good thing, that everything they do must be good. I'm not saying that. But, there is a relationship -- a shared outlook -- between the French view of social issues like P2P, and their view of how one country should treat another.
So, I find this sort of conflict interesting -- not just in this situation, but in any where it arises. We have this societal expectation, and yet something else we believe in strongly or understand better tells us that the expectation might be wrong. From there, we can re-examine our social conditioning, and question what we were raised to believe.
Obvious stuff, perhaps, but in these days of people telling us that sharing is piracy, I think it's good to notice the conflict between our society and our hearts.
Except that, on the net, this really does happen. People take over other's computers all the time, to host porn sites, warez sites, to use them as hops/storage on the way to another computer, and for all sorts of other crap. There's really no reason to assume that someone is guilty for having files on their computer with the net as it is today, and security as it is today.
Actually, it's implemented on .NET, and it's patented, along with the rest of the Earth's genomes.
I make mine with carrots and vegetable stock ;)
This is the other problem with people assuming fixed-size screens: not everyone maximises their browser. It's perfectly possible to have two browser windows on screen, or to be viewing your browser window inside a split-panel view from your news aggregator, as I'm doing right now. Assuming screen size is just naïve.
The whole point of HTML is that it doesn't matter what size of screen the viewer has. You set fonts relative to normal, and it just works, because the user can set what they want to be "normal" on their screen.
Likewise, it's possible to design graphics that scale using combinations of repeating patterns and static elements, and it's possible to specify sizes in percentages of the total size, rather than, for example, in pixels.
All this "designed for 1024x768" or whatever is just a sign of bad workmanship or novicehood.
hahhha, yes, and now clock faces and coasters :)
We all know AOL has been bad for the net in some ways, but there is at least one good thing we can say about it. That is, it's the only company that held its own against Microsoft's attempts to dominate the IM world. Thankfully, they may have just held on long enough for Google to get the Jabber ball rolling at last.
Of course the PR girl is a hottie. Even in a coding company, PR people aren't hired for their coding skills you know ;)
But, considering that she works for Opera, and *still* uses an MS Hotmail email account, she doesn't even get the fight she's involved in. Personally, apart from thanks for somehow being involved in holding back a monopoly, I can't think of much I'd want to say to the girl.
Agreed on all points but one. Well said :)
The point where I would change something is... you added the 3D rendering time onto the python control code's time. But, these will run in parallel. You can tell the 3D card to render all that stuff, while the python (or any other) code is handling input events, doing AI, etc.
Basically, LSCM unwrapping lets you "skin" a model (not in the 3D skinning sense, but in the animal skinning sense) so you end up with a flat covering. Actually, the method is similar too -- just mark the "seems" where you would cut with a knife to remove the skin in one piece. Then, you can export that covering to a paint program, draw on it, and put it back on your model :)
Well, lightwave runs on Video Toaster hardware, and blender has a similar UI :)
You could always model your own toaster or kitchen sync, if you must :)
Well said. In the end, Ruby is just a MVC and ORM web framework, along with a little bit of code generation to get you started. That's basically all good, though :)
On that note, it's worth mentioning the Python equivalent of RoR, since the poster mentioned a python background. Django is probably the best place to look for an MVC/ORM (web) framework in Python, if you're interested in trying it.
Well, that depends on what you understand by "guideline". I think he's probably acting within the spirit of the guidelines, if not the words.
Ermm, you're forgetting that he is one of the masses too. No one is particularly anonymous. Nor is he special enough that his entries wouldn't be changed if others thought they were wrong. So, he's just another peer, contributing to a great site. Nothing new there for Wikipedia :)
Part of society? yes. Society? No. I'm already aware of what's necessary. You, and others here are not. Until more members of our society see it that way, nothing will change, no matter what individuals want. So, I'm doing my part just by talking about it? What are you doing, except trying to be awkward?
Looks like average anatomy to me. I think I'll put this down as a publicity stunt.
Well, actions don't become right just because they could be worse. And actually, I think Microsoft has pretty much done everything it could get away with, whenever it stood to gain from it, regardless of the social consequences.
Wrong. It's certainly not up to me, but it IS up to society. You missed my point completely.
Well, what you say is true, in a sense. For one thing, there are of course visual art programs that blind people are unlikely to be interested in. There's little or no point in making those accessible to THOSE disabled users.
If it happens that other disabled users WANT to use it however, and have some difficulties due to design, then that should obviously be fixed. The article is about dexterity issues, which can easily be solved by allowing different input methods, as an older version did.
The big issue though, is that people simply being dismissive of disabled users' needs. There is absolutely no reason why, if a user (disabled or not) wants to be able to control a piece of software, that input methods cannot be devised to allow this. So, when I say all programs, I mean all programs that disabled users might want to use, but that IS much closer to ALL programs than a handful, and I really think we need to think of accessibility as a default, rather than an exception.
On high-contrast, high-feedback, low-skill, etc... Again, if a user wants to play such a game, they are likely to believe that they could do it, if the input and feedback only suited them. This could easily be catered for with different UI modes, tilesets, etc. Most user interfaces, even in games, are becoming much more dynamic, using scalable graphics and high-level input APIs rather than bitmaps and raw joystick access. So it's definitely doable. And, yes, I think any cost involved in that extra mode should be part of the overall cost for all members of society who play the game. We're all in this social thing together.
Yes, well, you're talking about stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, presumably because you don't have an argument related to what I'm talking about. So, I'll leave it here.