What is the point of this? Needlessly endangering someone? Is there some great need for surgery in space? Are there aliens civilizations who need surgery?
Re:The problem with guis is they don't work
on
GUIs Get a Makeover
·
· Score: 2
Huh, really? Well first of all, without a graphical user interface, you can't see images, or even nice formatting. You also can't arrange windows to maximize your productivity, or for that matter do two things at once at all.
Having a GUI doesn't mean always using the mouse. The mouse is a great tool, but so is the keyboard. Sure, you use the keyboard to navigate spreadsheet cells, but what about when you want to bring up a web page next to the spreadsheet to read off of it? I generally mainly use the keyboard when using my editor of choice, TextMate. But when there is something I don't know a command for, I use the mouse. It's far more efficient than searching man pages. Plus, I can arrange windows to serve my needs, far better than trying to make it work in text only emacs.
For most things, the GUI is better than a CLI. Many good CLI applications are a hack to make it more like a GUI while still being usable in a text terminal.
It's rather interesting how the ACLU alters the Bill of Rights to serve their agenda. They seem to have switched out the part about the right to bear arms with something entitling minorities to discriminatory treatment (affirmative action).
I for one don't want gamers and pot smokers running the nation I live in. Is that unreasonable? I have a feeling it applies to 99% of the U.S., and probably the world.
Less spin!? The entire foundation of the show is based on "spin"! It's a satire!
Most of the other news shows are not pro-Bush. They generally show a slant to the opposite side, although that could be due to a real political slant or a tendency to carry bad news. Most likely, it's both.
No, they don't. They present whatever they deem funny, and make stupid, often misinformational, jokes about it. They're %80 Funny, 10% troll, 10% flamebait, and 0% informational.
No and no. I said murder. The death penalty and self defense are not murder. Now, I understand that murder is generally defined legally, and "legally murder" is an oxymoron, but I was referring to the general definition under law, which is rather fundamental to society.
No one has to shop at Wal-Mart. Generally there are near effortless alternatives. Regardless of what some ridiculous law says, they are not a monopoly.
If there was a legal avenue to take, then it's our right to take it.
That's not true. Even if there was a way to legally murder someone, you still have no right to do it. There have been many bad things that were legal in the world's history. The people who did them still had no right to do so.
The GP mentioned using all of those license as an example of how GPLv2 and v3 could get along. I was pointing out that the non-GPL licenses weren't really much trouble, so they don't indicate the difficulties of using 2 incompatible GPLs.
I don't especially like the GPL as a free software license, but it's good in some circumstances and I have no problem with people using it.
You mentioned a lot of licenses, but GPL is the main one causing problems. BSD, Apache, LGPL, etc. can be used in pretty much anything. GPL takes the position that only when Richard Stallman controls your licensing is your software truly free.
It is not easy at all to bring software products into popularity. First of all, due to the lack of cost to duplicate you mentioned, it is easy for a large company to sell it cheap, or even give it away, in order to gain dominating marketshare. Second of all, popular products become de facto standards and it is hard to overcome them.
Slashdot Mirror
How does it help the pharmaceutical companies for potential customers to die? People are dying because as of yet there is not cure.
What is the point of this? Needlessly endangering someone? Is there some great need for surgery in space? Are there aliens civilizations who need surgery?
Huh, really? Well first of all, without a graphical user interface, you can't see images, or even nice formatting. You also can't arrange windows to maximize your productivity, or for that matter do two things at once at all.
Having a GUI doesn't mean always using the mouse. The mouse is a great tool, but so is the keyboard. Sure, you use the keyboard to navigate spreadsheet cells, but what about when you want to bring up a web page next to the spreadsheet to read off of it? I generally mainly use the keyboard when using my editor of choice, TextMate. But when there is something I don't know a command for, I use the mouse. It's far more efficient than searching man pages. Plus, I can arrange windows to serve my needs, far better than trying to make it work in text only emacs.
For most things, the GUI is better than a CLI. Many good CLI applications are a hack to make it more like a GUI while still being usable in a text terminal.
I heard that they were switching to HURD.
I disagree. Think of all the release quality applications (e.g. Gmail) that are called beta.
But everyone on /. does have the Wikipedia reflex for unknown things. Or is that just me?
It's rather interesting how the ACLU alters the Bill of Rights to serve their agenda. They seem to have switched out the part about the right to bear arms with something entitling minorities to discriminatory treatment (affirmative action).
I for one don't want gamers and pot smokers running the nation I live in. Is that unreasonable? I have a feeling it applies to 99% of the U.S., and probably the world.
Less spin!? The entire foundation of the show is based on "spin"! It's a satire!
Most of the other news shows are not pro-Bush. They generally show a slant to the opposite side, although that could be due to a real political slant or a tendency to carry bad news. Most likely, it's both.
Are you under the impression that these shows are meant to be informational? Does their being on "Comedy Central" not give you a clue?
The biggest problem is a bunch of people agreeing with each other until their opinion becomes "fact". Then no one else can argue with them.
No, they don't. They present whatever they deem funny, and make stupid, often misinformational, jokes about it. They're %80 Funny, 10% troll, 10% flamebait, and 0% informational.
I agree. It's a very funny show, but it should never be treated as informational.
Rediculous? A second diculous? Which was the first? At least you were here to undiculous his post.
No and no. I said murder. The death penalty and self defense are not murder. Now, I understand that murder is generally defined legally, and "legally murder" is an oxymoron, but I was referring to the general definition under law, which is rather fundamental to society.
A practical interpretation is a company that people have to deal with to get an important product or service. Wal-mart isn't a monopoly in any manner.
The law does not create your rights. It can only ensure or infringe upon them.
No one has to shop at Wal-Mart. Generally there are near effortless alternatives. Regardless of what some ridiculous law says, they are not a monopoly.
That's not true. Even if there was a way to legally murder someone, you still have no right to do it. There have been many bad things that were legal in the world's history. The people who did them still had no right to do so.
The GP mentioned using all of those license as an example of how GPLv2 and v3 could get along. I was pointing out that the non-GPL licenses weren't really much trouble, so they don't indicate the difficulties of using 2 incompatible GPLs.
I don't especially like the GPL as a free software license, but it's good in some circumstances and I have no problem with people using it.
You mentioned a lot of licenses, but GPL is the main one causing problems. BSD, Apache, LGPL, etc. can be used in pretty much anything. GPL takes the position that only when Richard Stallman controls your licensing is your software truly free.
No. It's okay for the owner to display the ten commandments in them. Read the GP.
It is not easy at all to bring software products into popularity. First of all, due to the lack of cost to duplicate you mentioned, it is easy for a large company to sell it cheap, or even give it away, in order to gain dominating marketshare. Second of all, popular products become de facto standards and it is hard to overcome them.
The iPod wasn't a new idea. It was an old idea done well.
Banks aren't public property.