The primary difference is that many people don't feel the need to educate themselves in any way when it comes to computers. Many people seem almost proud of their ignorance. They'll happily declare that they don't know anything about computers.
This applies to everything that advances technology. Look at the VCR. Computers is just the latest ignorance fad. When it comes to technology, even the brightest minds suddenly become anti-intellectual. It's as if by magic, mentioning technology makes people want to be dumb.
It bothers me when renowned so-and-so starts waxing philosophical about kids these days, but doesn't know how to use a computer or uses a typewriter only or whatnot. Sure, computers may not be relevant to what they do, but then they probably should lay off the social commentary and go back to doing what they're good at, whatever that might be. And I could say the same about policy makers, but that they should just retire.
It happens to me every so often. Occasionally, I will actually wake up, but it's rare, since I don't have this problem every night. The key to knowing when it happens is when I wake up tired. And when I wake up tired, I have felt the sensation of not breathing right before I consciously wake up.
That's a non-sequitor. Grandparents or great-grandparents is irrelevant.
Age = wisdom. Most people didn't live past 60 back in the day, but if somebody just so happened to do so, it's was something to look up to and try to duplicate. Believe it or not, people used to value the elderly, and in many parts of the world, they still do.
No, it's the other way around. You proved GP's point.
Netscape had no competition until IE5. It was either Netscape, or AOL, and AOL wasn't a web browser in any way, it was a glorified portal. People flocked to IE when it came out. If you think people went to IE because it was on every Windows 95 machine and up, you'd be wrong. Not completely wrong, but wrong nonetheless. IE5 was the epitome of Good Enough, especially for the web as it existed back then. It was fast, reliable, lightweight, and loaded most pages without making a fuss, even pages that were poorly written (malformed HTML). There's a reason why Netscape's nickname was Nutscrape, and it's not because of some weird form of adoration.
As for what made the web, IE made the web far more accessible than Netscape. It wasn't even Netscape that started the revolution. You can credit that to AOL (who later bought out Netscape, but that's long after Navigator 4 and into Navigator 5 territory). Netscape was a big player very briefly and only for power users on the WWW. By the time e-commerce and all the other things online people nowadays take for granted came about, IE was the only player in the market left outside of AOL (which eventually adopted IE before the Netscape buyout).
I don't think anybody thought MS was benevolent. Beneficial, perhaps, to the personal computer market, but not benevolent. Unless you're referring to the pre-DOS days when MS was still doing BASIC interpreters.
They only really need two large touch screens: one for the monitor, and one for the keyboard. In a laptop form factor, it's even better, because you can turn it sideways like the dual-screen e-book readers to make one huge screen, or present two interfaces for on-the-spot multiplayer gaming.
Unfortunately, driving a car is relatively simple compared to what computer programs do. A car goes forwards and backwards (and there's no real UI to support backwards motion) for the most part, as it doesn't really turn so much as it goes forward at an angle, and it only has two modes of operation: stop, and go. So its UI is simple, and easy to get right.
On the other hand, designing an intuitive universal GUI that encompasses the needs of every program out there is very difficult. Every program has different needs, and a different usage pattern. Some are procedural. Some are functional. Some are visual. Simple isn't necessarily right in all instances.
I'm not defending the ribbon. But it's not to say that the current UI is the most intuitive either.
Just FYI, likeness shouldn't be considered IP. To use a person's likeness without permission of that person of of that person's estate should constitute as fraud, slander, or libel, not as copyright or trademark infringement.
Obviously, there needs to be free speech exemptions, but that's a different thing.
It's strange. Eternal weekends start to get boring after a while. You start running out of stuff to do. Then you don't do anything. Then a month down the line, you wonder what just happened to the month before.
Having a job isn't simply about money. It's also about the accomplishment, and feeling accomplished. Some people loathe their jobs. That's unfortunate. But for those who do something they like doing, that they feel is worthwhile doing, the money's just icing on the cake. Or it's really, an extra bonus for what they'd be doing for free anything.
What happens to people on an eternal weekend after a while is an accelerated mid-life crisis. Life itself becomes meaningless.
As to answer the question myself, I probably wouldn't code if I didn't have to. I have other interests and hobbies that I'd be interested in pursuing. It's nothing terribly grand, mind you, just things that I'd rather be doing that's not coding.
No, "irregardless" is a nasty habit. Mistaking there or their for they're or any combination thereof is a nasty habit, since it's usually laziness that drives people to use the spelling without the apostrophe.
Using mute for moot is like using affect instead of effect: a sign of ignorance. And as we all understand inherently, the best thing with which to counter ignorance is knowledge.
It's not ironic. Free market, which is the idea that supply and demand are the only driver of prices, isn't compatible with laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism tends towards monopolies. This has been shown time and again. The only recourse the rest of the world has from this is government regulation, i.e. antitrust.
How about using this easy litmus test: government regulation is good when the people come out on top. Government regulation is bad when corporations come out on top.
Why does this quick test work? Because the government is supposed to be working for the people, not for corporations.
Where does this test fail? When it's not so obvious who benefits, a corporation, or the people. Sometimes, benefitting a corporation also benefits people, because corporations are staffed by people. And the issue brings up another variable to account for: which corporation benefits from the regulation.
In a way you can say that the philosophers are constantly trying to catch up, and integrate the new knowledge in their world perceptions.
Only the analytical philosophers, and that's because they limited themselves to "reality," and as such, since reality is best defined by science, they're limited by what science says it reality is.
Philosophy doesn't require science; it is much more vast, much greater, than science. The universe itself (of which science is mainly regarding) cannot encompass all the possibilities of thought. Science, or really, the scientific method itself is a philosophy of truth.
Analytical philosophy is a fad, one which, funny enough, came into prominence as science and engineering came into prominence. Personally, I think a lot of philosophers are insecure, and as such, turn to a stabler basis to form their ideas. It's not wrong, but it's severely limiting, which is probably why the latter 20th century hasn't borne too many interesting philosophies, just lots of people debating about past philosophies.
In fact, that you think analytical philosophy is all there is to philosophy indicates to me just how far the scholarly field has truly fallen.
It's so that they can figure out what to do in the 15 minutes of waiting for the sysadmin to come over for escalated privileges to open up the missile interface command terminal to respond to an immenent attack on the green zone.
Slashdot Mirror
me, the gamer girl
Ok, you had me up to that point, but now I'm certain you're lying through your teeth.
The primary difference is that many people don't feel the need to educate themselves in any way when it comes to computers. Many people seem almost proud of their ignorance. They'll happily declare that they don't know anything about computers.
This applies to everything that advances technology. Look at the VCR. Computers is just the latest ignorance fad. When it comes to technology, even the brightest minds suddenly become anti-intellectual. It's as if by magic, mentioning technology makes people want to be dumb.
It bothers me when renowned so-and-so starts waxing philosophical about kids these days, but doesn't know how to use a computer or uses a typewriter only or whatnot. Sure, computers may not be relevant to what they do, but then they probably should lay off the social commentary and go back to doing what they're good at, whatever that might be. And I could say the same about policy makers, but that they should just retire.
The lesson here is to consume all in moderation.
Taking a little caffine in the morning to wake up will help with Alzheimers. Taking too much to the point where you can't sleep at night won't.
It happens to me every so often. Occasionally, I will actually wake up, but it's rare, since I don't have this problem every night. The key to knowing when it happens is when I wake up tired. And when I wake up tired, I have felt the sensation of not breathing right before I consciously wake up.
That's a non-sequitor. Grandparents or great-grandparents is irrelevant.
Age = wisdom. Most people didn't live past 60 back in the day, but if somebody just so happened to do so, it's was something to look up to and try to duplicate. Believe it or not, people used to value the elderly, and in many parts of the world, they still do.
The problem is that you start getting used to it.
That's the problem with everything really. Repeat something enough, and it's not effective anymore because you adapt to it.
The best solution is to have somebody small jump on you in the morning. Guaranteed to wake you up immediately.
No, it's the other way around. You proved GP's point.
Netscape had no competition until IE5. It was either Netscape, or AOL, and AOL wasn't a web browser in any way, it was a glorified portal. People flocked to IE when it came out. If you think people went to IE because it was on every Windows 95 machine and up, you'd be wrong. Not completely wrong, but wrong nonetheless. IE5 was the epitome of Good Enough, especially for the web as it existed back then. It was fast, reliable, lightweight, and loaded most pages without making a fuss, even pages that were poorly written (malformed HTML). There's a reason why Netscape's nickname was Nutscrape, and it's not because of some weird form of adoration.
As for what made the web, IE made the web far more accessible than Netscape. It wasn't even Netscape that started the revolution. You can credit that to AOL (who later bought out Netscape, but that's long after Navigator 4 and into Navigator 5 territory). Netscape was a big player very briefly and only for power users on the WWW. By the time e-commerce and all the other things online people nowadays take for granted came about, IE was the only player in the market left outside of AOL (which eventually adopted IE before the Netscape buyout).
I don't think anybody thought MS was benevolent. Beneficial, perhaps, to the personal computer market, but not benevolent. Unless you're referring to the pre-DOS days when MS was still doing BASIC interpreters.
They only really need two large touch screens: one for the monitor, and one for the keyboard. In a laptop form factor, it's even better, because you can turn it sideways like the dual-screen e-book readers to make one huge screen, or present two interfaces for on-the-spot multiplayer gaming.
He's the guy in the back who yells, "Population control!"
Unfortunately, driving a car is relatively simple compared to what computer programs do. A car goes forwards and backwards (and there's no real UI to support backwards motion) for the most part, as it doesn't really turn so much as it goes forward at an angle, and it only has two modes of operation: stop, and go. So its UI is simple, and easy to get right.
On the other hand, designing an intuitive universal GUI that encompasses the needs of every program out there is very difficult. Every program has different needs, and a different usage pattern. Some are procedural. Some are functional. Some are visual. Simple isn't necessarily right in all instances.
I'm not defending the ribbon. But it's not to say that the current UI is the most intuitive either.
Cane Toad in Oz
Just put a pair of red shoes on it and it'll be back in Kansas in no time.
Just FYI, likeness shouldn't be considered IP. To use a person's likeness without permission of that person of of that person's estate should constitute as fraud, slander, or libel, not as copyright or trademark infringement.
Obviously, there needs to be free speech exemptions, but that's a different thing.
It's strange. Eternal weekends start to get boring after a while. You start running out of stuff to do. Then you don't do anything. Then a month down the line, you wonder what just happened to the month before.
Having a job isn't simply about money. It's also about the accomplishment, and feeling accomplished. Some people loathe their jobs. That's unfortunate. But for those who do something they like doing, that they feel is worthwhile doing, the money's just icing on the cake. Or it's really, an extra bonus for what they'd be doing for free anything.
What happens to people on an eternal weekend after a while is an accelerated mid-life crisis. Life itself becomes meaningless.
As to answer the question myself, I probably wouldn't code if I didn't have to. I have other interests and hobbies that I'd be interested in pursuing. It's nothing terribly grand, mind you, just things that I'd rather be doing that's not coding.
No, "irregardless" is a nasty habit. Mistaking there or their for they're or any combination thereof is a nasty habit, since it's usually laziness that drives people to use the spelling without the apostrophe.
Using mute for moot is like using affect instead of effect: a sign of ignorance. And as we all understand inherently, the best thing with which to counter ignorance is knowledge.
Or it's just an elaborate April Fools joke that the feds are going to spring on us on April 1.
Maybe they're playing Bejeweled on their iPhone because they find lawyers boring and the whole thing a perfectly good waste of their time.
Wouldn't it be the other way; find the rabbit on Earth by body heat from the moon?
women will navigate first by landmarks and familiarity
Or just ask someone.
It's not ironic. Free market, which is the idea that supply and demand are the only driver of prices, isn't compatible with laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism tends towards monopolies. This has been shown time and again. The only recourse the rest of the world has from this is government regulation, i.e. antitrust.
How about using this easy litmus test: government regulation is good when the people come out on top. Government regulation is bad when corporations come out on top.
Why does this quick test work? Because the government is supposed to be working for the people, not for corporations.
Where does this test fail? When it's not so obvious who benefits, a corporation, or the people. Sometimes, benefitting a corporation also benefits people, because corporations are staffed by people. And the issue brings up another variable to account for: which corporation benefits from the regulation.
In a way you can say that the philosophers are constantly trying to catch up, and integrate the new knowledge in their world perceptions.
Only the analytical philosophers, and that's because they limited themselves to "reality," and as such, since reality is best defined by science, they're limited by what science says it reality is.
Philosophy doesn't require science; it is much more vast, much greater, than science. The universe itself (of which science is mainly regarding) cannot encompass all the possibilities of thought. Science, or really, the scientific method itself is a philosophy of truth.
Analytical philosophy is a fad, one which, funny enough, came into prominence as science and engineering came into prominence. Personally, I think a lot of philosophers are insecure, and as such, turn to a stabler basis to form their ideas. It's not wrong, but it's severely limiting, which is probably why the latter 20th century hasn't borne too many interesting philosophies, just lots of people debating about past philosophies.
In fact, that you think analytical philosophy is all there is to philosophy indicates to me just how far the scholarly field has truly fallen.
Your code is so safe with VSS even you can't get to it.
It's so that they can figure out what to do in the 15 minutes of waiting for the sysadmin to come over for escalated privileges to open up the missile interface command terminal to respond to an immenent attack on the green zone.
the odd man eating Maori.
So what would even men eat?