Windows 7 supposedly has support for multi-touch gestures. Part of the Aero Snap features were developed more with a touch interface in mind than a mouse.
Watch how in Minority Report windows are tossed to the left and right with Tom Cruise's fingers.
I have yet to use Windows 7 with a touch interface, but I suspect it may not be as horrible as you suggest.
If the primary purpose of the iPad is something to read eBooks on and casually surf the web, I assume most users will expect there to be Flash support. They may learn it is a niche device and get past the lack of Windows or Mac apps.
When Apple launched the first generation iPhone, they were determined to hit a window and a price point. Doing so, they were missing several key features. By the time the 3G-S rolled around, I bought one without too many regrets. But in many ways, it is the phone that they should have launched with originally.
I expect the iPad may go through a few revisions before they can squeeze in everything it really should have at the price point they want.
First off, congrats on getting the release out the door. I do appreciate the project.
That being said, in 3.0, supposedly there was support in Calc to external references (to values in other documents). In 3.1, it was supposedly fixed. It still didn't work.
I'm curious to see if it finally works in 3.2. And for those who don't know, you should check out Novell's fork/non-standard builds over at go-oo.org. Many Linux distros use these builds automatically, but if you're on Windows, that is the version I'd grab. They have several nice improvements over the upstream version.
The war on drugs can't be easily dismissed or summed up in a paragraph.
Honestly I even go back on forth on it myself a bit. Having seem most of my family battle drug addictions, I'm not entirely sure it is victimless.
I'll say this. I stand behind the principle that without a victim, it shouldn't be a crime. I can't say definitely that there is or isn't a victim with drug addiction. It is an issue that we need to understand better.
I'm usually one to avoid bringing everything back to Nazi Germany, but sadly it may be a fair parallel here.
Hitler flew in the face of the Treaty of Versaille and marched a militia into demilitarized zones to test the water and see if anyone would oppose him. He tipped his hand with his intentions.
And while Time was naming him Man of the Year for his contributions to rebuilding the German economy, his writings blaming Poles and Jews for all their woes existed. People chose to ignore his overt racism.
People ignored him as he invaded other nations and waited until Germany was a near-unstoppable behemoth. The decision not to stop Hitler when he first broke the Treaty of Versailles cost tens of millions of civilian lives.
When someone calls for the extermination of a people and pursues nukes at the same time, perhaps it would be wise to err on the side of caution.
And maybe Iran is labeled as a terrorist state because the government funds terrorists. Maybe it is because they kill anyone who speaks up. They assassinate people who try to run for office.
I spoke to a man from Iran who apologized for the 30th anniversary of an unfortunate event where Americans were killed in a terrorist attack carried out by Iranians. He said that he wanted the world to know that not all Iranians believe in violence. I don't assume all Iranian citizens are evil.
But it is most assuredly an evil government. There really isn't any way to try and deny it.
A buddy of mine who is white was also recently detained by TSA. In my last trip through customs coming back into the country (last May) I saw a Hispanic family behind me detained for some time.
The TSA is a bit overzealous. But people seem to WANT security theater to feel safe. People with knee jerk reactions demand we do something to stop terrorist attacks, without realizing none of htis makes us safer.
And if you want to compare being detained for a few hours compared to not having a right to free speech in Iran, then let's talk apples to apples.
The UN ignoring genocide recently in Yugoslavia as it split into fractured nations.
The UN ignoring genocide in Rwanda.
Today it ignores genocide in places like Sudan, and Kenya.
Liberia was ready to have another bloody civil war, and the UN ignored it. The US decided to step in and help broker peace, saving countless lives.
Yes, the US doesn't seem to show the UN much respect. But maybe that's because the UN is content to repeatedly ignore genocide while the US constantly risks American lives to protect others, and leads the entire world in foreign relief.
You say we're in two wars of aggression. Funny, both the populace of Iraq and Afghanistan openly welcomed Americans and both have free governments today because a US-led coalition deposed corrupt leaders.
Women have rights in Afghanistan for the first time in their history.
Torture is a complex issue. From a moral standpoint, you shouldn't do it. However, where exactly would you draw the line on what is acceptable to interrogate someone when you're trying to save lives? When I sit in a movie theater and I see the rogue cop beat a suspect, and hear the audience cheer him on, I'm left to wonder why the audience supports it in that situation.
As for health care, my wife is from Canada. Her father is from England. He has brain cancer, but they couldn't diagnose it in Canada or England due to a lack of access to MRI machines. He tells his family in England that he gets to schedule surgery for whenever he wants. He doesn't have to sit through a lottery to determine who lives and dies. He doesn't have to wait 9 months for life-saving surgery. They're amazed.
Pick up a newspaper in Canada and see how the government is firing doctors and nurses, and denying health services to people. See how more and more public hospitals are being built. Then ask yourself how our health care compares.
My father-in-law says every day that he is only alive today because the health care industry is so much better in the US than in Canada and England. And last time I checked, people from the entire world travel here specifically to see the best doctors and receive the best care.
Clearly, that means our health care is terrible. We do have an issue with expensive premiums, but no one seems to be addressing that issue.
Lastly, if you want to compare human rights records of the US compared to Iran, North Korea, China, etc. go ahead.
Other than the Defense of Marriage Acts (which I'm against) I haven't seen Christians on the whole try to push for a whole lot of morality in legilslation about victimless crimes.
I believe it is the 14th Amendment that lays a groundwork to further clarify that the government shouldn't take basic rights away from us, and that without a victim there shouldn't be a crime.
I as a Christian happen to agree with that principle.
However, the truth is that all legislation is a form of morality. People keep screaming that our legislation matches Christian morality, but I think they'll find it matches the morality of many different religions.
I never said there weren't issues. I said most people citing it have no idea what they're citing.
The Constitution of the United States opens with "We the People". Is that to suggest the Constitution refers to its member citizens, or all people living on our soil?
The distinction that the Constitution applies to citizens only, or everyone is not exactly clear.
The framework of two houses, one representing equal representation regardless of size, and the other giving additional representation to states with more population is a good one.
The fact that the two parties in this country stink, and that both parties are spending HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS all in additional deficit is another issue. That doesn't mean the framework is flawed.
As I understand it, in Australia, government officials can't take bribes of any kind. They are paid well to attract smart individuals. The United States could improve their government model in many ways, but the "Great Compromise" could be applied to the UN successfully.
Obama said he was against warrantless wiretaps and would vote against the the FIMA bills, except he voted for them.
However, most people credit the bill with various nebulous evils that aren't actually there.
In theory, a good lawyer should be able to argue that even though a law allows for warrantless wiretaps, they are unconstitutional, and get them tossed out.
Why assume that a "proper global government" would give equal footing to all nations?
When framing the US under the Constitution, there was debate whether or not to give equal footing to all states regardless of size, or whether or not to give more power to larger states. We compromised. We have the House and Senate for exactly that reason.
Immediately after 9/11 the public criticism was that the government did not know enough. They should have prevented it.
The problem is that you can't scream for privacy, yet expect the government to know everything at the same time. Pick your poison. The public clammored for the government to have more power.
I haven't read the entirety of the bill. (I've only skimmed the table of contents). But I do believe that it was passed with the honest intent of trying to make the nation more secure for foreign threats.
In that regard, the name Patriot Act isn't some lie meant to cover up the true insidious purpose.
I wouldn't be shocked if the bill was a knee-jerk overreaction that grants too much power to the government.
While I believe that almost every politician is motivated by dollar signs, I don't believe everyone in Congress is evil.
Having met several politicians who I believe actually have some principles (crazy thought!) I can't believe the bill would pass vote after vote if it were truly so evil.
For years I've asked people to back up their claims. Tell me what specifically is evil. Tell me what specific beef you have with it.
I might just agree with you. I might actually make it a personal crusade and contact some politicians myself to express my concerns with it.
However, since no one ever does back up these claims of how evil the Patriot Act is, I'm left to believe this is mostly empty rhetoric. I have zero interest in buzz words thrown around.
I grew tired of Chicken Littles telling me that if you said anything anti-government you'd be thrown in jail. The government is monitoring us all and controlling us all!
Funny, because for everyone who speaks out against the US government, nothing ever happens to any of them. Keith Olberman specifically said he was concerned that his wife would disappear in a black van if he spoke out against the government, despite the fact that he ripped the US government on a NIGHTLY basis on national television. Nothing ever happened.
Maybe, just maybe, we don't have this evil, oppressive government that everyone claims.
We are FAR from perfect. But we're not Big Brother either.
Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?
Having the media standard and players are nice, but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard (that will be around for more than 2 seconds) is somewhat important as well.
They ask major telecom providers to do warrantless wiretaps and monitors on select individuals from time to time. There is certainly an argument that this behavior is wrong. But they do not monitor everyone all the time. They have no idea what you're saying on the phone, or emailing until they put in a wiretap.
If they monitored everything all the time, they'd certainly be able to better stop would-be terrorists for instance.
George W. Bush asked the major search engines to hand over all recent data on search with corresponding IP addresses. Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo just handed it over. Google fought the issue.
If the government already monitored everything, they wouldn't have had to ask for that information.
The UN was designed for inaction to placate people after the massive failure of the League of Nations. Most nations wanted to make sure we didn't get involved in another World War.
A proper global government could suspend the member rights of a nation like Iran for their human rights violations and then impose penalities, such as economic sanctions, and if need be, military intervention.
At the very least they could stand up and make a statement. Even if it is just words, they should censure nations that don't allow for basic freedoms such as free speech.
Even Hillary Clinton stood up to China recently and said that the US feels China needs to allow for free speech and end their policies of censorship.
Even with the Patriot Act, the US government needs judges to issue orders to gain access to our emails.
Judges could abuse this system. However, the Patriot Act does not really change the situation. Moral judges protect us, and amoral judges could screw us.
For everyone citing the Patriot Act as being the ultimate evil, they forget both parties voted for it repeatedly, and few seem to know anything about it to back up their fears that it is truly evil legislation.
So let me ask you, what is your specific beef with it?
Last time I checked, you have the freedom to bash your government and call them evil. In Iran, that freedom doesn't exist.
So don't pretend that the sky is falling when in reality there are billions who do live under terrible oppression. Stop whining about how bad you have it, and try to steal focus from those who have almost no freedoms to speak of.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 supposedly has support for multi-touch gestures. Part of the Aero Snap features were developed more with a touch interface in mind than a mouse.
Watch how in Minority Report windows are tossed to the left and right with Tom Cruise's fingers.
I have yet to use Windows 7 with a touch interface, but I suspect it may not be as horrible as you suggest.
If the primary purpose of the iPad is something to read eBooks on and casually surf the web, I assume most users will expect there to be Flash support. They may learn it is a niche device and get past the lack of Windows or Mac apps.
When Apple launched the first generation iPhone, they were determined to hit a window and a price point. Doing so, they were missing several key features. By the time the 3G-S rolled around, I bought one without too many regrets. But in many ways, it is the phone that they should have launched with originally.
I expect the iPad may go through a few revisions before they can squeeze in everything it really should have at the price point they want.
First off, congrats on getting the release out the door. I do appreciate the project.
That being said, in 3.0, supposedly there was support in Calc to external references (to values in other documents). In 3.1, it was supposedly fixed. It still didn't work.
I'm curious to see if it finally works in 3.2. And for those who don't know, you should check out Novell's fork/non-standard builds over at go-oo.org. Many Linux distros use these builds automatically, but if you're on Windows, that is the version I'd grab. They have several nice improvements over the upstream version.
The war on drugs can't be easily dismissed or summed up in a paragraph.
Honestly I even go back on forth on it myself a bit. Having seem most of my family battle drug addictions, I'm not entirely sure it is victimless.
I'll say this. I stand behind the principle that without a victim, it shouldn't be a crime. I can't say definitely that there is or isn't a victim with drug addiction. It is an issue that we need to understand better.
I'm usually one to avoid bringing everything back to Nazi Germany, but sadly it may be a fair parallel here.
Hitler flew in the face of the Treaty of Versaille and marched a militia into demilitarized zones to test the water and see if anyone would oppose him. He tipped his hand with his intentions.
And while Time was naming him Man of the Year for his contributions to rebuilding the German economy, his writings blaming Poles and Jews for all their woes existed. People chose to ignore his overt racism.
People ignored him as he invaded other nations and waited until Germany was a near-unstoppable behemoth. The decision not to stop Hitler when he first broke the Treaty of Versailles cost tens of millions of civilian lives.
When someone calls for the extermination of a people and pursues nukes at the same time, perhaps it would be wise to err on the side of caution.
And maybe Iran is labeled as a terrorist state because the government funds terrorists. Maybe it is because they kill anyone who speaks up. They assassinate people who try to run for office.
I spoke to a man from Iran who apologized for the 30th anniversary of an unfortunate event where Americans were killed in a terrorist attack carried out by Iranians. He said that he wanted the world to know that not all Iranians believe in violence. I don't assume all Iranian citizens are evil.
But it is most assuredly an evil government. There really isn't any way to try and deny it.
A buddy of mine who is white was also recently detained by TSA. In my last trip through customs coming back into the country (last May) I saw a Hispanic family behind me detained for some time.
The TSA is a bit overzealous. But people seem to WANT security theater to feel safe. People with knee jerk reactions demand we do something to stop terrorist attacks, without realizing none of htis makes us safer.
And if you want to compare being detained for a few hours compared to not having a right to free speech in Iran, then let's talk apples to apples.
Do you know what I find to be a joke?
The UN ignoring genocide recently in Yugoslavia as it split into fractured nations.
The UN ignoring genocide in Rwanda.
Today it ignores genocide in places like Sudan, and Kenya.
Liberia was ready to have another bloody civil war, and the UN ignored it. The US decided to step in and help broker peace, saving countless lives.
Yes, the US doesn't seem to show the UN much respect. But maybe that's because the UN is content to repeatedly ignore genocide while the US constantly risks American lives to protect others, and leads the entire world in foreign relief.
You say we're in two wars of aggression. Funny, both the populace of Iraq and Afghanistan openly welcomed Americans and both have free governments today because a US-led coalition deposed corrupt leaders.
Women have rights in Afghanistan for the first time in their history.
Torture is a complex issue. From a moral standpoint, you shouldn't do it. However, where exactly would you draw the line on what is acceptable to interrogate someone when you're trying to save lives? When I sit in a movie theater and I see the rogue cop beat a suspect, and hear the audience cheer him on, I'm left to wonder why the audience supports it in that situation.
As for health care, my wife is from Canada. Her father is from England. He has brain cancer, but they couldn't diagnose it in Canada or England due to a lack of access to MRI machines. He tells his family in England that he gets to schedule surgery for whenever he wants. He doesn't have to sit through a lottery to determine who lives and dies. He doesn't have to wait 9 months for life-saving surgery. They're amazed.
Pick up a newspaper in Canada and see how the government is firing doctors and nurses, and denying health services to people. See how more and more public hospitals are being built. Then ask yourself how our health care compares.
My father-in-law says every day that he is only alive today because the health care industry is so much better in the US than in Canada and England. And last time I checked, people from the entire world travel here specifically to see the best doctors and receive the best care.
Clearly, that means our health care is terrible. We do have an issue with expensive premiums, but no one seems to be addressing that issue.
Lastly, if you want to compare human rights records of the US compared to Iran, North Korea, China, etc. go ahead.
Other than the Defense of Marriage Acts (which I'm against) I haven't seen Christians on the whole try to push for a whole lot of morality in legilslation about victimless crimes.
I believe it is the 14th Amendment that lays a groundwork to further clarify that the government shouldn't take basic rights away from us, and that without a victim there shouldn't be a crime.
I as a Christian happen to agree with that principle.
However, the truth is that all legislation is a form of morality. People keep screaming that our legislation matches Christian morality, but I think they'll find it matches the morality of many different religions.
I never said there weren't issues. I said most people citing it have no idea what they're citing.
The Constitution of the United States opens with "We the People". Is that to suggest the Constitution refers to its member citizens, or all people living on our soil?
The distinction that the Constitution applies to citizens only, or everyone is not exactly clear.
The framework of two houses, one representing equal representation regardless of size, and the other giving additional representation to states with more population is a good one.
The fact that the two parties in this country stink, and that both parties are spending HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS all in additional deficit is another issue. That doesn't mean the framework is flawed.
As I understand it, in Australia, government officials can't take bribes of any kind. They are paid well to attract smart individuals. The United States could improve their government model in many ways, but the "Great Compromise" could be applied to the UN successfully.
This is the big thing that gets mentioned, and with good reason.
I think this could be fought in a court of law as being unconstitutional pretty easily.
That is the provision I am most concerned about.
Obama said he was against warrantless wiretaps and would vote against the the FIMA bills, except he voted for them.
However, most people credit the bill with various nebulous evils that aren't actually there.
In theory, a good lawyer should be able to argue that even though a law allows for warrantless wiretaps, they are unconstitutional, and get them tossed out.
I agree that both parties are far more similar than people want to claim.
That being said, you evaded the question.
What is your _specific_ beef with the Patriot Act?
Please cite specific passages, and why they're evil.
Why assume that a "proper global government" would give equal footing to all nations?
When framing the US under the Constitution, there was debate whether or not to give equal footing to all states regardless of size, or whether or not to give more power to larger states. We compromised. We have the House and Senate for exactly that reason.
I think a similar model could work for the UN.
There is a new proposed HDMI spec for the additional bandwidth needed, but it doesn't have widespread acceptance by the TV industry yet.
The UAE is willing to take vocal stands. They called for Saddam to step down to try and prevent a US invasion. That is why I mentioned them.
I'll focus on that instead.
Immediately after 9/11 the public criticism was that the government did not know enough. They should have prevented it.
The problem is that you can't scream for privacy, yet expect the government to know everything at the same time. Pick your poison. The public clammored for the government to have more power.
I haven't read the entirety of the bill. (I've only skimmed the table of contents). But I do believe that it was passed with the honest intent of trying to make the nation more secure for foreign threats.
In that regard, the name Patriot Act isn't some lie meant to cover up the true insidious purpose.
I wouldn't be shocked if the bill was a knee-jerk overreaction that grants too much power to the government.
While I believe that almost every politician is motivated by dollar signs, I don't believe everyone in Congress is evil.
Having met several politicians who I believe actually have some principles (crazy thought!) I can't believe the bill would pass vote after vote if it were truly so evil.
For years I've asked people to back up their claims. Tell me what specifically is evil. Tell me what specific beef you have with it.
I might just agree with you. I might actually make it a personal crusade and contact some politicians myself to express my concerns with it.
However, since no one ever does back up these claims of how evil the Patriot Act is, I'm left to believe this is mostly empty rhetoric. I have zero interest in buzz words thrown around.
I grew tired of Chicken Littles telling me that if you said anything anti-government you'd be thrown in jail. The government is monitoring us all and controlling us all!
Funny, because for everyone who speaks out against the US government, nothing ever happens to any of them. Keith Olberman specifically said he was concerned that his wife would disappear in a black van if he spoke out against the government, despite the fact that he ripped the US government on a NIGHTLY basis on national television. Nothing ever happened.
Maybe, just maybe, we don't have this evil, oppressive government that everyone claims.
We are FAR from perfect. But we're not Big Brother either.
Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?
Having the media standard and players are nice, but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard (that will be around for more than 2 seconds) is somewhat important as well.
No, they do not.
They ask major telecom providers to do warrantless wiretaps and monitors on select individuals from time to time. There is certainly an argument that this behavior is wrong. But they do not monitor everyone all the time. They have no idea what you're saying on the phone, or emailing until they put in a wiretap.
If they monitored everything all the time, they'd certainly be able to better stop would-be terrorists for instance.
George W. Bush asked the major search engines to hand over all recent data on search with corresponding IP addresses. Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo just handed it over. Google fought the issue.
If the government already monitored everything, they wouldn't have had to ask for that information.
The UN was designed for inaction to placate people after the massive failure of the League of Nations. Most nations wanted to make sure we didn't get involved in another World War.
A proper global government could suspend the member rights of a nation like Iran for their human rights violations and then impose penalities, such as economic sanctions, and if need be, military intervention.
At the very least they could stand up and make a statement. Even if it is just words, they should censure nations that don't allow for basic freedoms such as free speech.
Even Hillary Clinton stood up to China recently and said that the US feels China needs to allow for free speech and end their policies of censorship.
Why does everyone try to bring everything back to Nazi Germany? Sheesh!
That isn't a fair comparison. Nazi Germany called for the extermination of all Jews.
Iran called for the extermination of all Jews.
Oh, wait.
Even with the Patriot Act, the US government needs judges to issue orders to gain access to our emails.
Judges could abuse this system. However, the Patriot Act does not really change the situation. Moral judges protect us, and amoral judges could screw us.
For everyone citing the Patriot Act as being the ultimate evil, they forget both parties voted for it repeatedly, and few seem to know anything about it to back up their fears that it is truly evil legislation.
So let me ask you, what is your specific beef with it?
Last time I checked, you have the freedom to bash your government and call them evil. In Iran, that freedom doesn't exist.
So don't pretend that the sky is falling when in reality there are billions who do live under terrible oppression. Stop whining about how bad you have it, and try to steal focus from those who have almost no freedoms to speak of.
In theory the United Nations could try to push an agenda of basic human rights and freedoms to all nations.
But that might require them to grow a conscience and/or a pair of balls.
I did not realize that Persians were not considered Arabs. I guess you learn something every day.