Even 14 year old kids on Myspace can figure out CSS.
Really? I haven't seen any evidence of that. MySpace in general is the most unattractive collection of web pages I've ever seen... with the possible exception of luminous-landscape.
Someone should change that to: "By accessing, using or providing feedback on these materials, or attempting to sue anyone over these materials you agree to the to give the person who altered this document $37,000,000,000 in US currency." And then promptly distribute it widely.
By the way, anyone replying to, reading, commenting about, or in any way accessing the material in this post; including but not limited to moderating, meta-moterating, storing in a database, retrieving from a database, viewing in a web browser, including it in or making a reference to it in a legal document, or accidentially glancing at this post agrees to send $100 to me for each occurance.
The low boundary is being able to perform common office tasks like email, word processing, and internet searches, and being able to understand and follow general instructions with regard to executing these tasks, and being able to describe specific tasks in these categories in an understandable way. A person who can do these things is going to be an asset to any company who hires them and we teach to this level of performance.
My son at age 2 was able to type in his name and a short password, navigate to the games he wanted to play (Jumpstart Toddler and some Cartoon Network online games), and do basic tasks. By 4 he was able to do everything on your low boundry. I would not consider that to be the low boundry for college or adults, I would consider it the low boundry for first graders. That's stuff that should be taught in kindergarden.
Understanding how computers work and how to use them is no longer a fringe skill. It's as important as knowing how to read and write is in most businesses. IT departments have enough to do without having to hand hold people who have no idea where they saved their document, or what they named it, or if they named it, etc. If a filing clerk kept misplacing the paper folders they'd be fired. Yet somehow it gets a pass when they do it electronically.
I would define a reasonable level of functional computer literacy somewhere between your low and high middle. High middle and high should be taught in high school. Anyone who is below your low middle is no more computer literate than someone who can barely read if they take the time to sound it out is literate in the traditional sense.
Like it or not most end users don't know what the hell a firewall is, much less how to configure one.
That may be true, but I for one don't mind if those people are forced to learn a little bit before putting a potential spam host on the internet. We don't accept the ignorance argument for allowing people to use public roads.
Granted a rouge system on the internet isn't capable of killing anyone; but the inconvience of having to read a dialog box and click a button to allow outbound connections for a particular app is hardly a major inconvience compared to how much trouble it would save the vast majority of internet users.
We need the local, state, and Federal governments to be able to help a bit and allow us the ability to help -- especially for those of us that really want to.
No, we don't need more big goverment. Global warming has become such a political tool that rational discorse about it has become difficult. Please people, take a few minutes to get some real information and stop the Chicken Little hysteria which invariably leads to demands for more government control and less personal freedom.
Apparently there was an error in the job listing. They were looking for a "go for" guy. And now, since they don't have coffee and fast food 60% of the project has to be redone.
Full Tilt Poker now has a full Mac client. My wife and I both use it frequently, it works fine.
PokerStars works fine under Wine on Linux. It even installs and does updates without a hitch. I hear Party Poker does also but have not tried it personally.
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are "04ef2712aae8e67c518674[edited]" and "a106408624fa50f546c21449[edited]" and (optionally, but preferably) your IP number "xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx[edited]" and your username "KilobyteKnight".
Normally I would have just ignored this. But I felt like responding to the obviously politically motivated modding in an anonymous fashion. Seems like any time I express a conservative view, I get modded in such a way, so apparently I should do so anonymously from now on.
Strangely enough, I get the message above while trying to post anonymously. It's not so anonymous it would seem. It's particularly ironic that it should come in a topic about outlawing anonymous posts to message boards.
I don't blame the Slashdot editors for this. I understand the need to try to prevent trolls. It's perfectly reasonable to do so. I think I just got caught in one of the unintended consequences of automating the process.
It is a bit frustrating to have been (I feel) unfairly modded down, then have my ability to post anonymously temporarily revoked because of it.
But anyway... I was originally just going to point out the cowardace of modding down views because you don't agree with them. I don't mind you not agreeing with me, but trying to prevent others from hearing what I have to say makes you no better than the NJ politician.
Of course, the Court's membership isn't the same as it was in 1960. The President can appoint who he wants to the Supreme Court. So, who'd you vote for, for president, in 2004?
Someone who has appointed two Supreme Court Justices that espoused a view that the Constitution matters - not their personal opinions. Who'd you vote for?
The kind of person who needs to go out and buy an 8-way box with 16 GB of RAM is probably happy to spend more money on the OS than the kind of person who goes out to buy a single-processor box with 512M of RAM.
They're saying that it was every bit as warm in 800 A.D. then? That kinda discounts their theory that modern man is causing global warming then doesn't it?
The global warming crowd hates inconvient facts like that.
Being warmer in 800 AD indicates the temp was going down for at least part of the time between then and now, and this was while human "interference" was ramping up.... another nail in the coffin the theory.
Being warmer in 800 AD indicates that nature is perfectly capable of making the climate warmer than it is now on it's own.... another nail.
Getting cooler in the mean time proves that nature can cool itself back off again... yet another nail.
Yet with the core facts indicating that it is NOT human "interference", you still have people crying about the sky falling using those very same facts.
The simple fact is humans have never been able to replicate the power of nature. We are mere nats at best to Mother Nature.
You also cannot blame Yahoo until you have some reason to believe that they knew why this person was being arrested. Reporters without Borders is quoted in the article as saying that Yahoo knew he wasnt an ordinary criminal, but doesnt say why.
In China there is no free speech. Political dissent is a crime. So in China, the guy -was- an ordinary criminal.
As a side note: I've seen several posts (not the parent) where people are acting like Yahoo is evil for following the law, but China is somehow exempt from evil for making the law. It shows the hipocracy of socialists.
Even in regards China some people are so mind numbed as to think corporations are all bad and governments are all good - unless a Republican is President of course. I blame government controlled schools for this stupidity.
There is allmost no comercial backing of the more commercial-frendly BSD licences. Why is it? Because more enforced freedom to all users is the most effective way in the long term and businesses know that.
Both Microsoft and Apple use BSD code. OSX is a BSD derivitave. So I'd have to say you're completely wrong about there not being any commercial backing.
Also, it's laughable to imagine this conversation in a board room: "If we enforce the users freedom we will be more effective for our business" "Right on!" "So out long term goal is to enforce mroe freedom by using the GPL, so get rid of all that unrestricted use BSD code in those projects and replace it with GPL code." "Right on!" "Now go synergise!"
I'm sort of concerned about the logging of all my IM's. I suppose I know on a logical level that all that stuff is being stored, regardless of the IM client. But I prefer to live in the cloud that tells me my IMs are private and if I don't log 'em, they don't get logged.
It asks if you want to log the chats when you first set it up.
Just tell it you don't want to log chats and have fun in your cloud.
That said I'm giving GIMP a try every once in a while. People say it rocks once you clear the Photoshop mist and once you get familiar with the somewhat weird GUI you'll find it, well, awesome.
Not too weird. And not too different from PhotoShop. Heck even most of the keyboard shortcuts are the same. If you're really a professional, you're using the keyboard shortcuts.
It's obviously not made for print due to the lack of CMYK-support, and for web production.. well, compare Photoshops "Save for web"-module vs GIMP's "Select a JPEG compression percentage please"-prompt.
CMYK support would be nice. Most photo printing places want the image in sRGB though. Those that don't can still use it. "Save for web" is a weak argument. If you're a professional, you know all about JPG compression and how to tweak it to your needs.
The only big thing missing from Gimp is 16 bit support. There are some nice features of PhotoShop, lots of bells and whistles. Many of them quite useful. It's a highly polished product. However, there's nothing you can do in PhotoShop that you can't accomplish in Gimp (except work with 16 bit images).
If Torvalds feels it is unfair to force hardware manufacturers to open up, isn't it equally unfair to force people writing derivatives of Linux to open up, and it should be placed in the public domain?
No.
It's the difference between telling people what they can do with what you create, and telling people what they can do with what they create.
In this country we have a judicial system that is based on the prevention of crime, not retribution.
You didn't specify what country you are in, but if you are in the US you are mistaken. Laws can not prevent crime even if that was their intent. A police officer can not arrest someone for thinking about committing a crime. They have to wait until some illegal activity has already occured.
There may be some argument to be made that the threat of punishment is a deterrant. The vast majority of criminals either think they're going to get away with it or do not think about the consequences of their actions. Threat of punishment is not much of a deterrant to someone who thinks they will never face it. There may be the rare criminal that weighs the consequences and decides the benefit of the crime outweighs the punishment.
What the legal system is left with is punishment after the fact and isolating or monitoring that person in such a way as to prevent reoccurance.
The law is not a prohibition only against the initial photographer of such things... it's against ALL PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION of pornographic material depicting (real) minors!
So is the prosecutor guilty of public display when introducing the CD as evidence?
It's a variation on the "people who havn't done anything wrong have nothing to fear".
No, it's pointing out that no one can name a single "innocent American" who's rights have been violated. Not one.
In the limited scope of spying on international (not domestic) communications involving suspected terrorists, I do not have a problem at all with what is going on. No one has presented any evidence that anything else is happening.
Would you have opposed spying on Americans making phone calls to Heinrich Himmler -during- WWII? If your answer to that is "no", you are being inconsistant in your stance. If you answer is "yes", then I think reason would be lost on you.
All this talk of whether the police should be able to spy on Americans is irrelevant; they can. The only question is whether it should require a warrant. And more importantly, whether the decision to require a warrant is the President's to make.
You do realize it's being used to track the international conversations of suspected terrorists, right? I don't think any rational person would argue against the Presidents or the military's authority to spy on foreign combatants durign a time of war, yet somehow this is being mischaractized as "spying on innocent Americans". It would be absurd to think the President needs court permission to spy on enemy combatants.
Another point, where are the "innocent Americans" that are being spied on? Can you name one? Has anyone been prosecuted based on such spying? Do you think an "innocent American" who had no involvement in terrorism would have any trouble at all getting such evidence thrown out?
Slashdot Mirror
Someone should change that to: "By accessing, using or providing feedback on these materials, or attempting to sue anyone over these materials you agree to the to give the person who altered this document $37,000,000,000 in US currency." And then promptly distribute it widely.
By the way, anyone replying to, reading, commenting about, or in any way accessing the material in this post; including but not limited to moderating, meta-moterating, storing in a database, retrieving from a database, viewing in a web browser, including it in or making a reference to it in a legal document, or accidentially glancing at this post agrees to send $100 to me for each occurance.
My son at age 2 was able to type in his name and a short password, navigate to the games he wanted to play (Jumpstart Toddler and some Cartoon Network online games), and do basic tasks. By 4 he was able to do everything on your low boundry. I would not consider that to be the low boundry for college or adults, I would consider it the low boundry for first graders. That's stuff that should be taught in kindergarden.
Understanding how computers work and how to use them is no longer a fringe skill. It's as important as knowing how to read and write is in most businesses. IT departments have enough to do without having to hand hold people who have no idea where they saved their document, or what they named it, or if they named it, etc. If a filing clerk kept misplacing the paper folders they'd be fired. Yet somehow it gets a pass when they do it electronically.
I would define a reasonable level of functional computer literacy somewhere between your low and high middle. High middle and high should be taught in high school. Anyone who is below your low middle is no more computer literate than someone who can barely read if they take the time to sound it out is literate in the traditional sense.
Granted a rouge system on the internet isn't capable of killing anyone; but the inconvience of having to read a dialog box and click a button to allow outbound connections for a particular app is hardly a major inconvience compared to how much trouble it would save the vast majority of internet users.
Apparently there was an error in the job listing. They were looking for a "go for" guy. And now, since they don't have coffee and fast food 60% of the project has to be redone.
PokerStars works fine under Wine on Linux. It even installs and does updates without a hitch. I hear Party Poker does also but have not tried it personally.
If you want it layed out like PhotoShop, there's always GimpShop
Normally I would have just ignored this. But I felt like responding to the obviously politically motivated modding in an anonymous fashion. Seems like any time I express a conservative view, I get modded in such a way, so apparently I should do so anonymously from now on.
Strangely enough, I get the message above while trying to post anonymously. It's not so anonymous it would seem. It's particularly ironic that it should come in a topic about outlawing anonymous posts to message boards.
I don't blame the Slashdot editors for this. I understand the need to try to prevent trolls. It's perfectly reasonable to do so. I think I just got caught in one of the unintended consequences of automating the process.
It is a bit frustrating to have been (I feel) unfairly modded down, then have my ability to post anonymously temporarily revoked because of it.
But anyway... I was originally just going to point out the cowardace of modding down views because you don't agree with them. I don't mind you not agreeing with me, but trying to prevent others from hearing what I have to say makes you no better than the NJ politician.
Someone who has appointed two Supreme Court Justices that espoused a view that the Constitution matters - not their personal opinions. Who'd you vote for?
Add Exchange type calendaring and this could seriously hurt Outlook and Microsoft in general.
The global warming crowd hates inconvient facts like that.
Being warmer in 800 AD indicates the temp was going down for at least part of the time between then and now, and this was while human "interference" was ramping up.... another nail in the coffin the theory.
Being warmer in 800 AD indicates that nature is perfectly capable of making the climate warmer than it is now on it's own.... another nail.
Getting cooler in the mean time proves that nature can cool itself back off again... yet another nail.
Yet with the core facts indicating that it is NOT human "interference", you still have people crying about the sky falling using those very same facts.
The simple fact is humans have never been able to replicate the power of nature. We are mere nats at best to Mother Nature.
As a side note: I've seen several posts (not the parent) where people are acting like Yahoo is evil for following the law, but China is somehow exempt from evil for making the law. It shows the hipocracy of socialists.
Even in regards China some people are so mind numbed as to think corporations are all bad and governments are all good - unless a Republican is President of course. I blame government controlled schools for this stupidity.
Also, it's laughable to imagine this conversation in a board room:
"If we enforce the users freedom we will be more effective for our business"
"Right on!"
"So out long term goal is to enforce mroe freedom by using the GPL, so get rid of all that unrestricted use BSD code in those projects and replace it with GPL code."
"Right on!"
"Now go synergise!"
It asks if you want to log the chats when you first set it up.
Just tell it you don't want to log chats and have fun in your cloud.
CMYK support would be nice. Most photo printing places want the image in sRGB though. Those that don't can still use it. "Save for web" is a weak argument. If you're a professional, you know all about JPG compression and how to tweak it to your needs.
The only big thing missing from Gimp is 16 bit support. There are some nice features of PhotoShop, lots of bells and whistles. Many of them quite useful. It's a highly polished product. However, there's nothing you can do in PhotoShop that you can't accomplish in Gimp (except work with 16 bit images).
It's the difference between telling people what they can do with what you create, and telling people what they can do with what they create.
There may be some argument to be made that the threat of punishment is a deterrant. The vast majority of criminals either think they're going to get away with it or do not think about the consequences of their actions. Threat of punishment is not much of a deterrant to someone who thinks they will never face it. There may be the rare criminal that weighs the consequences and decides the benefit of the crime outweighs the punishment.
What the legal system is left with is punishment after the fact and isolating or monitoring that person in such a way as to prevent reoccurance.
In the limited scope of spying on international (not domestic) communications involving suspected terrorists, I do not have a problem at all with what is going on. No one has presented any evidence that anything else is happening.
Would you have opposed spying on Americans making phone calls to Heinrich Himmler -during- WWII? If your answer to that is "no", you are being inconsistant in your stance. If you answer is "yes", then I think reason would be lost on you.
You do realize it's being used to track the international conversations of suspected terrorists, right? I don't think any rational person would argue against the Presidents or the military's authority to spy on foreign combatants durign a time of war, yet somehow this is being mischaractized as "spying on innocent Americans". It would be absurd to think the President needs court permission to spy on enemy combatants.
Another point, where are the "innocent Americans" that are being spied on? Can you name one? Has anyone been prosecuted based on such spying? Do you think an "innocent American" who had no involvement in terrorism would have any trouble at all getting such evidence thrown out?