I just set out the dcon traps and let that spring snap their little necks. I'll snap grandma's neck too if she shits on my countertop. Mice or old people I don't care, there are consequences to taking a shit in my kitchen.
It might raise the question, but it does not "beg the question." I know that there is some acceptance of your common usage of the phrase, however, it still makes you sound like an idiot.
I agree, I've pretty much stopped looking for new music altogether. I still listen to new music, on internet radio stations. I just don't bother to find out what I'm listening to and go buy it.
If you are returning the game because it's flakey, and, supposing all 360s are flakey, that is, it is a defect. Then you won't be able to continue playing that game from where you left off. You will have to start the same game over on a different system, assuming it's available.
Further, if the game is not available the knowledge you have gained from that game is not applicable to a different game, it is lost. You are making the assumption that the only thing you get from ten hours of gaming is ten hours of fun, but that's not true. You get ten hours of gaming fun plus ten hours of mixed experience divided between general skills and game-centric skills. If you are going to return the 360 for a different brand, or, all 360s are defective, then you cannot capitalize on the game centric skills, they are essentially useless. Think of them like a gift certificate that expires that you were told had no expiration date. You expect it to have value tommorow, but it may not. If the game did not have manufacturing defects, you would not have lost those skills.
You may say the skills have little value, but I don't think a one day late $10 minimum payment creates $25 dollars or more worth of damage for the credit card company either.
When we invest time into an activity we expect a return from our developed skill. However, you're being pedantic and you know it. It is a common turn of phrase to suggest one "invests time into doing something". The point is only that it is time lost because the other side did not hold up their end of the bargain.
I'm not btw, arguing that suing is the right solution, I'm only suggesting that the grandparent's argument doesn't wash. I'd elaborate, but I don't care all that much.
PS: Don't make the absurd assumption that I'm talking about myself, I don't even own a tv set let alone a video game.
When you purchase a product expecting it to work and it doesn't you are denied entertainment. Time spent playing a game only to have it lock up is time lost that could have been invested in a competitors game much like the video could have been rented to someone else.
these bulbous pieces of shit look dumb on everyone, not just you. So do the oakleys. You are just not going to make a cubic inch of electronics look smooth on a pair of glasses. A product like this will be ready for prime time when you can fit the entire player in the eraser head of a mechanical pencil.
Why is this news? Who DOESN'T know this and who DOESN'T know that it's still a drag to run linux on antiquated hardware. Windows 98 runs on old hardware too, so what.
I still have an old 486/16m with redhat six that I use as a terminal from time to time. I bet most of slashdot has a similar story to tell.
BTW: I use only linux/osx so let's not suggest that I'm a windows defender (tm).
Well, that is your opinion. Whether it's beautiful though is in the eyes of the beholder. I think it looks like a tatoo or a bumper sticker. That is, by itself, it's not a bad image/design, however, it adds nothing, but rather detracts from the original design of the host item. Apple gets it right with the subtle apple "tattoo" on the back. This guy's got the equivalent of the full body mural that's half done. I think it looks gay. Which was my point, great if you like it, but control your gushing, it's hardly quality industrial design. There are ladies in the mall who sell sweatshirts like that if you like that kind of thing.
That is, however, my opinion. My point was, of course, that it's perfectly on topic to render an opinion about how something looks when the entire article is about how something looks.
This author of this article is practically frothing over how beautiful his apple looks with his custom laser work. How is criticising his quaint applique off topic when the entire article is about him playing dressup with his mac.
Casemodding isn't any less gay just because you do it on a mac.
Is that because it has less value? I mean, beauty is in the eye of the beholder an all, but um, don't expect apple's design department to be ringing up any time soon.
This is why you sit in the front row. It is well known that others will distract you if you don't. Yes I know not everyone can sit in the front row, but I don't care.
ODF does not exclude windows. Microsoft is free to implement ODF like everyone else. Moving to ODF will be difficult for everyone, not just the disabled, the argument is that in the long run it will be better for everyone, including the disabled.
I don't thinks that you can roll out ODF in a day and things will just run smoothly. There will have to be a transition period where documents are available and accepted in multiple formats.
I think you are exagerating what I'm talking about. Do you mean to tell me that when encountering a red light with say 40 cars in a row that you wait in the lane through three light changes?
The thrust of my point was this. Most cyclist follow the rules of the road at least as often as motorists do, in my opinion, more often. However, when you see a cyclist breaking the rules, more often than not, it's because the cyclist sees that as the safer choice.
If you've ridden as much as you say you have then I know you've encountered the motorist who at the green light ignores your presense and makes a right turn in front of you.
You talk about people passing too closely, I find that happens more often right out of the light when they think you are in the way and they are trying to save a few milliseconds.
I stay visible and don't concern myself that I'm behaving exactly as a motor vehicle, because I'm not a motor vehicle.
You mean the rules that motorists don't follow? I so tire of hearing this argument from people who never step on a bicycle. Most cyclists drive safely and sanely, they have no choice. Many motorists drive carelesly without regard to the safety of themselves and others. I witness tailgating, speeding, california stops, non-stops, foolishness, chatting while driving, eating while driving, etc etc etc almost every day. The vast majority of motorists seem to be completely self centered and behave as if they are the only person on the road. It never ceases to amaze me when people speed around me (while I'm driving my car) only to stop at the same red light which has been clearly visible for however long.
When a cyclist does the things you've mentioned it's usually a calculated decision based on saftey and efficiency. Since all motorists have to do to go faster is push their feet to the floor they probably have no idea what it means to conserve energy. In almost all cases, a cyclist will be less in your way if he is not waiting at the intersection but rather a few feet ahead of you. Going through the intersection when it is clear, rather than waiting for the light, is a safety move. You now see him, he is out of the intersection, and you can plan how you will pass him.
When a cyclist pulls into the left lane to make a left turn and rides down the middle of the lane it is for safety. If he rides too far to the right of the lane, you will just pull up next to him preventing him from making the left turn, same thing if he rides to the left, except to the left it's even worse as now he is close to oncoming traffic. So you're "impeded" for a few seconds, big deal. Why don't you take that few seconds to think about how you aren't doing a damn thing to improve your health and the health of others and he is.
Most cyclists do "generally" follow the rules of the road. But the reason they follow them is for the safety of their own lives. We don't eat hamburgers or talk on cell phones while we drive, speed carelessly, drive vehicles that weigh several tons, tear up the roads etc etc.
Bicycles are not cars and they aren't as dangerous as cars. When a cyclist drives through an intersection he's not going to kill someone with the mass of his bicycle. His experience tells him it's the safe thing to do. Your expectation that they should behave exactly as cars betrays your self centered approach to driving. Are you THAT much in a hurry that a few seconds of inconvenience every now and then is a big deal?
Cyclists generally don't survive an accident with a motorist. In almost all cases, however, cyclists don't get killed because they are doing the things you are talking about. Cyclists get killed because motorists are driving carelessly.
Stop being bitter that cyclists can get away with things that you can't as a motorist. They pay for it going up the next hill. The next time you see a cyclist doing one of those things, ask yourself if there isn't a safety advantage for him for doing what he's doing. I know that's the ONLY reason I do those things. My goal is to stay out of harms way and as visible as possible. We aren't trying to get over, we're trying to stay alive while we stay healthy.
"From the beginning, you've been able to show/hide the Dock with a keystroke or by moving the mouse near it. I have it set up to auto show/hide in the bottom-right corner when the mouse comes near."
Yes, I know that, I suspect the parent does also. How does that have anything to do with what I said? The first option requires me to move my hand off of the mouse to use a keystroke, the second is what we're complaining about.
If I have a document pulled down where the dock is and I move the mouse down to that part of the document to copy something or simply to click on a control, then the dock will pop up and get in the way.
The kde button problem solves BOTH problems. You see, it solves BOTH problems.
1) I can move it in and out of the way without moving my hand off of the mouse.
2) When it's out of the way I can use that part of the screen without having it getting in the way.
In fact, it stays out of the way until I actively tell it to get back in the way.
Now explain to me how the dock has this functionality? Can you get it to show itself with by using the mouse without the keyboard in an active fashion, that is, not just by moving the mouse?
The best compromise I could imagine would be a button on the menubar, however, that's still not as good as kde unless I want the dock to appear at the top of the screen, which I don't, because the button is too far away from where the dock will appear.
The keyboard is not a good solution. It requires a three button keystroke to move it out of the way and if that wasn't enough, it still becomes unhidden when you move the mouse over it. There is little to no advantage to the keystroke over auto-hide.
You're missing the point. You have the choice of the dock being annoying, or the dock taking up space on the bottom or side as WELL as the menu taking up space at the top. I would like to see the dock slide in and out with the press of a button ala kde. However, I doubt this would pass muster at apple because you have this unsightly little button protruding out of the corner.
Yes I own macs (which all run osx or linux) Yes I own pcs (which all run linux)
When XP works, at least in some cases, it works not because it's the best methodology. But because it is the one that people will do. It is "A" methodology where there either wasn't one, or there was something in name only which people paid lip-service too. For the programmer and manager alike, XP is easy to grasp and start implementing right away. Compared to more traditional methods, it's a simple method that eschews excess paperwork and you can explain the basic idea over lunch.
I also think there is something to the transparancy of the work environment. It's a lot harder to read slashdot when you are "pair-programming" or all of your peers are sitting in the center of a large room. It might just be that you get more done because it is harder to slack.
Slashdot Mirror
I just set out the dcon traps and let that spring snap their little necks. I'll snap grandma's neck too if she shits on my countertop. Mice or old people I don't care, there are consequences to taking a shit in my kitchen.
just ask him.
It might raise the question, but it does not "beg the question." I know that there is some acceptance of your common usage of the phrase, however, it still makes you sound like an idiot.
I agree, I've pretty much stopped looking for new music altogether. I still listen to new music, on internet radio stations. I just don't bother to find out what I'm listening to and go buy it.
Because there is no shortage of Indian programmers who want this opportunity to get a foot in the american door of opportunity. T
Sure it does, or can.
If you are returning the game because it's flakey, and, supposing all 360s are flakey, that is, it is a defect. Then you won't be able to continue playing that game from where you left off. You will have to start the same game over on a different system, assuming it's available.
Further, if the game is not available the knowledge you have gained from that game is not applicable to a different game, it is lost. You are making the assumption that the only thing you get from ten hours of gaming is ten hours of fun, but that's not true. You get ten hours of gaming fun plus ten hours of mixed experience divided between general skills and game-centric skills. If you are going to return the 360 for a different brand, or, all 360s are defective, then you cannot capitalize on the game centric skills, they are essentially useless. Think of them like a gift certificate that expires that you were told had no expiration date. You expect it to have value tommorow, but it may not. If the game did not have manufacturing defects, you would not have lost those skills.
You may say the skills have little value, but I don't think a one day late $10 minimum payment creates $25 dollars or more worth of damage for the credit card company either.
When we invest time into an activity we expect a return from our developed skill. However, you're being pedantic and you know it. It is a common turn of phrase to suggest one "invests time into doing something". The point is only that it is time lost because the other side did not hold up their end of the bargain.
I'm not btw, arguing that suing is the right solution, I'm only suggesting that the grandparent's argument doesn't wash. I'd elaborate, but I don't care all that much.
PS: Don't make the absurd assumption that I'm talking about myself, I don't even own a tv set let alone a video game.
When you purchase a product expecting it to work and it doesn't you are denied entertainment. Time spent playing a game only to have it lock up is time lost that could have been invested in a competitors game much like the video could have been rented to someone else.
these bulbous pieces of shit look dumb on everyone, not just you. So do the oakleys. You are just not going to make a cubic inch of electronics look smooth on a pair of glasses. A product like this will be ready for prime time when you can fit the entire player in the eraser head of a mechanical pencil.
Michael Jackson is in france this week for an undisclosed medical procedure.
Why is this news? Who DOESN'T know this and who DOESN'T know that it's still a drag to run linux on antiquated hardware. Windows 98 runs on old hardware too, so what.
I still have an old 486/16m with redhat six that I use as a terminal from time to time. I bet most of slashdot has a similar story to tell.
BTW: I use only linux/osx so let's not suggest that I'm a windows defender (tm).
Well, that is your opinion. Whether it's beautiful though is in the eyes of the beholder. I think it looks like a tatoo or a bumper sticker. That is, by itself, it's not a bad image/design, however, it adds nothing, but rather detracts from the original design of the host item. Apple gets it right with the subtle apple "tattoo" on the back. This guy's got the equivalent of the full body mural that's half done. I think it looks gay. Which was my point, great if you like it, but control your gushing, it's hardly quality industrial design. There are ladies in the mall who sell sweatshirts like that if you like that kind of thing.
That is, however, my opinion. My point was, of course, that it's perfectly on topic to render an opinion about how something looks when the entire article is about how something looks.
This author of this article is practically frothing over how beautiful his apple looks with his custom laser work. How is criticising his quaint applique off topic when the entire article is about him playing dressup with his mac.
Casemodding isn't any less gay just because you do it on a mac.
We are pleased to report that your son is now being considered in this years running for a prestigious darwin award. You should be very proud.
Is that because it has less value? I mean, beauty is in the eye of the beholder an all, but um, don't expect apple's design department to be ringing up any time soon.
This is why you sit in the front row. It is well known that others will distract you if you don't. Yes I know not everyone can sit in the front row, but I don't care.
bah
I don't believe that anyone thinks that you can...
ODF does not exclude windows. Microsoft is free to implement ODF like everyone else. Moving to ODF will be difficult for everyone, not just the disabled, the argument is that in the long run it will be better for everyone, including the disabled.
I don't thinks that you can roll out ODF in a day and things will just run smoothly. There will have to be a transition period where documents are available and accepted in multiple formats.
Yes, of course, this way you can just run that excel spreadsheet directly on the supercomputer, no need to convert it to a bunch of awkward C code.
I think you are exagerating what I'm talking about. Do you mean to tell me that when encountering a red light with say 40 cars in a row that you wait in the lane through three light changes? The thrust of my point was this. Most cyclist follow the rules of the road at least as often as motorists do, in my opinion, more often. However, when you see a cyclist breaking the rules, more often than not, it's because the cyclist sees that as the safer choice. If you've ridden as much as you say you have then I know you've encountered the motorist who at the green light ignores your presense and makes a right turn in front of you. You talk about people passing too closely, I find that happens more often right out of the light when they think you are in the way and they are trying to save a few milliseconds. I stay visible and don't concern myself that I'm behaving exactly as a motor vehicle, because I'm not a motor vehicle.
You mean the rules that motorists don't follow? I so tire of hearing this argument from people who never step on a bicycle. Most cyclists drive safely and sanely, they have no choice. Many motorists drive carelesly without regard to the safety of themselves and others. I witness tailgating, speeding, california stops, non-stops, foolishness, chatting while driving, eating while driving, etc etc etc almost every day. The vast majority of motorists seem to be completely self centered and behave as if they are the only person on the road. It never ceases to amaze me when people speed around me (while I'm driving my car) only to stop at the same red light which has been clearly visible for however long.
When a cyclist does the things you've mentioned it's usually a calculated decision based on saftey and efficiency. Since all motorists have to do to go faster is push their feet to the floor they probably have no idea what it means to conserve energy. In almost all cases, a cyclist will be less in your way if he is not waiting at the intersection but rather a few feet ahead of you. Going through the intersection when it is clear, rather than waiting for the light, is a safety move. You now see him, he is out of the intersection, and you can plan how you will pass him.
When a cyclist pulls into the left lane to make a left turn and rides down the middle of the lane it is for safety. If he rides too far to the right of the lane, you will just pull up next to him preventing him from making the left turn, same thing if he rides to the left, except to the left it's even worse as now he is close to oncoming traffic. So you're "impeded" for a few seconds, big deal. Why don't you take that few seconds to think about how you aren't doing a damn thing to improve your health and the health of others and he is.
Most cyclists do "generally" follow the rules of the road. But the reason they follow them is for the safety of their own lives. We don't eat hamburgers or talk on cell phones while we drive, speed carelessly, drive vehicles that weigh several tons, tear up the roads etc etc.
Bicycles are not cars and they aren't as dangerous as cars. When a cyclist drives through an intersection he's not going to kill someone with the mass of his bicycle. His experience tells him it's the safe thing to do. Your expectation that they should behave exactly as cars betrays your self centered approach to driving. Are you THAT much in a hurry that a few seconds of inconvenience every now and then is a big deal?
Cyclists generally don't survive an accident with a motorist. In almost all cases, however, cyclists don't get killed because they are doing the things you are talking about. Cyclists get killed because motorists are driving carelessly.
Stop being bitter that cyclists can get away with things that you can't as a motorist. They pay for it going up the next hill. The next time you see a cyclist doing one of those things, ask yourself if there isn't a safety advantage for him for doing what he's doing. I know that's the ONLY reason I do those things. My goal is to stay out of harms way and as visible as possible. We aren't trying to get over, we're trying to stay alive while we stay healthy.
"From the beginning, you've been able to show/hide the Dock with a keystroke or by moving the mouse near it. I have it set up to auto show/hide in the bottom-right corner when the mouse comes near."
Yes, I know that, I suspect the parent does also. How does that have anything to do with what I said? The first option requires me to move my hand off of the mouse to use a keystroke, the second is what we're complaining about.
If I have a document pulled down where the dock is and I move the mouse down to that part of the document to copy something or simply to click on a control, then the dock will pop up and get in the way.
The kde button problem solves BOTH problems. You see, it solves BOTH problems.
1) I can move it in and out of the way without moving my hand off of the mouse.
2) When it's out of the way I can use that part of the screen without having it getting in the way.
In fact, it stays out of the way until I actively tell it to get back in the way.
Now explain to me how the dock has this functionality? Can you get it to show itself with by using the mouse without the keyboard in an active fashion, that is, not just by moving the mouse?
The best compromise I could imagine would be a button on the menubar, however, that's still not as good as kde unless I want the dock to appear at the top of the screen, which I don't, because the button is too far away from where the dock will appear.
The keyboard is not a good solution. It requires a three button keystroke to move it out of the way and if that wasn't enough, it still becomes unhidden when you move the mouse over it. There is little to no advantage to the keystroke over auto-hide.
Have you used kde?
You're missing the point. You have the choice of the dock being annoying, or the dock taking up space on the bottom or side as WELL as the menu taking up space at the top. I would like to see the dock slide in and out with the press of a button ala kde. However, I doubt this would pass muster at apple because you have this unsightly little button protruding out of the corner.
Yes I own macs (which all run osx or linux)
Yes I own pcs (which all run linux)
Of course I meant:
When XP works, at least in some cases, it works not because it's the best methodology, but because it is the one that people will do.
and I even used preview, damn it!
When XP works, at least in some cases, it works not because it's the best methodology. But because it is the one that people will do. It is "A" methodology where there either wasn't one, or there was something in name only which people paid lip-service too. For the programmer and manager alike, XP is easy to grasp and start implementing right away. Compared to more traditional methods, it's a simple method that eschews excess paperwork and you can explain the basic idea over lunch.
I also think there is something to the transparancy of the work environment. It's a lot harder to read slashdot when you are "pair-programming" or all of your peers are sitting in the center of a large room. It might just be that you get more done because it is harder to slack.