The month-day-year system is probably the lease sensible method of the lot.
Not to those of us who often work with dates that often land on the next month. As a friend of mine likes to say "six of one, half dozen of the other."
The sanest way to do it would be year-month-day...
This is stupid, who thought MONTH - DAY - YEAR is a reasonable date format?
The person that noticed that we generally say "March 14th, 2010", so it's more intuitive.
It's like throwing away metric and using some crazy-ass divisible by 12 unit.
Oh please, it isn't done right where you are, either. It should be 2010-03-14 so it sorts chronologically and intuitively can't get the month or day mixed up. Your preference is simply different, not less stupid. This isn't one of those topics you can use to pose as one of the smarter people.
Err okay... so are you rebooting and launching Visual Studio enough times that it takes longer these days to write a program than it did back in the C64 days?
I must admit I am disappointed. I thought I was going to hear about how all the abstraction and use of libraries/modules/etc meant that we can create useful apps in a fraction of the time that we could in the 80's. I had no idea it actually took longer!
It's downright depressing to compare my present-day knowledge of computers, classify myself as somewhere in the upper 2%, and still wish I knew a quarter as much (percentage-wise) about my current computer as I did about my//c.
Can you get more done with a program today than you could with the Apple II?
Get whatever makes you happy. I'm saying consider what they do instead of what they might do. Otherwise you're just waiting to buy overpriced hardware that's fun to tinker with for a week.
I see no reason to be stuck with the programs Apple deems "appropriate" for me.
Until you're holding one of each and giving it a spin you're not going to see any reason.
Unless, of course, the mods think I sound insightful if I say "I see no reason to be stuck with half-assed Open Source copies of what Apple does, but it's just my opinion."?
I delayed in replying so that I could collect my thoughts a bit. Sorry about that, but I figured since you spent the time to write I should be a bit more meaningful than I have in the past rather than reply sooner.
I wouldn't necessarily desire that either, but the way I see things the person placed themselves in the situation. They are responsible for their actions, and the consequences arising from those actions.
I don't agree with this, but I don't disagree with it so much I find it offensive, either. There's definitely some merit to what you're saying. However, just because something is doesn't mean it's something that should be. In other words, if I walk up to a guy and say his wife is ugly, I have no reason to expect he shouldn't hit me. That doesn't mean that it's right that he did. I wouldn't have a right to complain about it, but I hope if I'm ever on the other end of that, I don't hit somebody. Not sure if that makes sense or not, but I mean that it's something I try to live by, too.
And, don't say that it's society's fault that they made the choices they did.
I don't believe anything like this. If a hungry man stole food from my fridge, I doubt I'd press charges. If he stole my laptop, we'd likely have some legal entanglement, there. I wouldn't care where he came from or what his history is, that's not cool. Nothing in the context of what we're talking about, however, would earn my sympathy. Really, sympathy is not part of my feelings, here. For me it's all about scope, not hugs.
I've pondered this quite a bit and I think our difference in perspective comes from where you measure the consequences of somebody's actions. If a dude wipes out a bank account and the victim goes homeless, if I am understanding you correctly, you feel the thief is guilty of making the homeless. I do not feel this way. I feel that the guy is guilty of stealing n-thousand dollars and that's it. Unless his intention was to ruin the guy (VERY unlikely in this context), he is not responsible for the collapse of the victim's lifestyle. Why? If the disappearance of money like that could cause that sort of chain reaction, you wouldn't need somebody acting criminally to ruin somebody's life. All that has to happen is for some low-paid clerk at a credit company to make a typo. And... that's happened. I watched a friend of mine not buy a house because a debt turned up on his report that wasn't his. Once notified, the company involved wouldn't correct it even though it was plainly obvious it wasn't his. That shouldn't be happening. Sadly I've heard this story a number of times. I've also had friends who have had their identity stolen, at worst they were out a couple of hundred bucks because in those cases their banks were responsive. As for me, myself, and I, I know that my bank account could suddenly go flat on a moment's notice. I have to be mindful of that. I'm a car accident or a freelance job (that needs gearing up) away from that happening.
I think part of my perspective here is that I don't think that scenario is likely. I talk to a lot of homeless people and yet to have heard "It all started from an email..." For that reason, it is difficult for me to take seriously. Combine that with my feeling that the crime is simply theft of certain amount of money, and you've got a situation where I don't think Slashdot Vigilante Justice is appropriate. I don't like vigilante'ism to begin with, I certainly don't think violence is in order when it's about money. Mainly, though, I do not trust Slashdot sensationalism as a fuel for justice, which is what prompted me to respond in the first place. There is so much posing going on with this site just to get that "+3 Insightful" tag that the idea of organizing something like that here makes me sick to my stomach.
Okay I think I've clarified my view enough here, anything else and I'm just making this post longer. I do want to add
Ummmm.... I read the entire conversation. I also read your statement in which you couldn't be too mad for too long because money was one of the first forms of "virtualization".
That is not what I said. What I said was that I would not want him, pardon the crude terminology, fucked in the ass.
To that I say, so what? What's that got to do with anything? You get your identity stolen in our world today you are very liable to lose all your real property and your very real reputation and ability to work.
Uh, no. This is an unlikely extreme. People get their identity stolen all the time. It sucks. But it's not like we're seeing an increase in the homeless population, like in the picture you're painting.
You're the one that floated the idea that because money was a form of virtualization you couldn't stay mad for long.
No, I didn't. See above.
That you wanted to see no harm come to someone who had stolen everything from you.
No physical harm. Again, this is something you should have gotten from your mastery of the context of this conversation.
I just asked why.
No, you didn't. You used a few question marks, but you didn't actually ask me anything. You used questions to put words in my mouth and then responded to that. You have not, at any time, seriously asked for clarification of what I meant. Here, I'll use this thread as an example of what you're doing:
"Just because money is a "virtualized" form of wealth identity theft is any less heinous than stealing someone's real wealth?"
So you really think stealing $2,000 from somebody's bank account is as bad as rape? When sex is forced upon somebody, something they value, intimacy that is worth a great deal to them, has been violently ripped away from them. This is something that they would spend any amount of money to erase from their history, thus making it more valuable than $2,000. They would spend their whole lives trying to deal with that, whereas that $2,000 they would make back much sooner in their lives. Just because somebody can give what they have to as many people as they want, doesn't mean there is no value in it.
What's with the urge to tell people that you're homosexual?
I think it serves two purposes. First it shows you that it is a lot more common than just a 'freak occurance'. Second is that it helps others feel more comfortable about coming out. The thing to keep in mind is that a lot of homosexual people feel like they have to hide it and a good chunk of those probably have a damn good reason to do so.
Somebody else said this, but it's worth repeating: It's for their sake, not yours.
So, stealing your good name--credit rating--and all that you own is no different to you than beating you in a game of monopoly? It's just virtual, not real?
Ah. Okay, two can play at this game: So, you think selling pot is worth jail time at your expense Mr. Taxpayer?
I skimmed the rest of your post and really there's nothing to reply to because you did not read the context of our conversation. I am impressed with how much blah-blah-blah can be generated over a sound-bite, though. Kudos.
You're still dealing with multiple vendors using multiple hardware configurations on a protocol intended to do a lot more than just ferry mouse inputs around.
Okay, I think you know a lot more about the inner workings of these devices than I do. Don't worry, I'm not challenging you there. But I don't think this is case of bad drivers or even a faulty implementation. I think it's a case of bluetooth having a more complex set up so it can support more devices without being a big security risk. I think what's going on is it's losing its connection with the mouse and wanting to reauthorize it before it starts doing its bidding. I would even be willing to bet that it isn't the software or the driver, but the OS doing this!
Logitech has non of this to worry about. They built a to-the-point device that doesn't even require a special driver. Yes, that's something they have to ramp up to learn, radiodigital is not easy. But at least they don't have to go through near as much testing or extra effort to support other devices. I think you're right, I don't have a full grasp of what it takes to get a signal to a device and back. But I think you're underestimating what sort of effort it takes to get one of these devices up and running on all the major OS's with a significant segment of cards it'll likely be talking to. It's all fine and good that it adheres to the spec, but is the real world that friendly about it or are they going to have to deal with problems like the OS cutting off communication to it for 'security reasons'?
That said, I'm not 100% sold on the idea that I'm right and you're wrong. So please don't feel like I'm not paying attention to what you said.
....Bluetooth devices will always be more reliable than proprietary hardware because Bluetooth has hundreds of companies all working together to design the communication protocols and hardware instead of one company hacking something together on their own.
That's exactly the reason why BT devices wouldn't be reliable. The dudes making their own proprietary protocol can make their own assumptions about what will connect. That's why I don't need to, for example, pair my mouse and its USB dongle. Ever.
Are there problems with Bluetooth devices which a shopper should be aware of?
I stopped using a BT mouse on my laptop because it wouldn't always wake up. I *think* it's because I turned off the mouse to save power (instead of just letting it sleep). It'd lose it's pairing credentials and have to negotiate with the OS again. I bought a Logitech mouse and the USB dongle was already permenantly paired to the mouse. Plug in, wait like 2 seconds, then I have a mouse.
Maybe the mouse just sucked, I dunno. Don't care, either. I'm so sick of tinkering with things like that it's not even funny.
Initially I'd be angry and want to see him suffer. After some time had passed and I had cooled off, if I heard he had been raped in prison, I would not say "good."
It's money, one of the earliest forms of virtualization. Think about that before you fantasize about swinging a baseball bat around.
Take almost any application available for free on Linux, and there is someone publishing a $20 shareware equivalent for Mac OS(X), and hundreds to tens of thousands of Mac users paying for it.
Really? I've never heard of this. Do you have an example? Is that why shareware apps aren't made for Windows?
Slashdot Mirror
You're kidding, right?
Give us credit for getting quieter when the claims that FireFox invented everything good about web browsing died down.
The month-day-year system is probably the lease sensible method of the lot.
Not to those of us who often work with dates that often land on the next month. As a friend of mine likes to say "six of one, half dozen of the other."
The sanest way to do it would be year-month-day...
This gets my vote.
This is stupid, who thought MONTH - DAY - YEAR is a reasonable date format?
The person that noticed that we generally say "March 14th, 2010", so it's more intuitive.
It's like throwing away metric and using some crazy-ass divisible by 12 unit.
Oh please, it isn't done right where you are, either. It should be 2010-03-14 so it sorts chronologically and intuitively can't get the month or day mixed up. Your preference is simply different, not less stupid. This isn't one of those topics you can use to pose as one of the smarter people.
I like to think it's the phase where you've built a global government, but haven't built your UFO yet.
Err okay... so are you rebooting and launching Visual Studio enough times that it takes longer these days to write a program than it did back in the C64 days?
I must admit I am disappointed. I thought I was going to hear about how all the abstraction and use of libraries/modules/etc meant that we can create useful apps in a fraction of the time that we could in the 80's. I had no idea it actually took longer!
It's downright depressing to compare my present-day knowledge of computers, classify myself as somewhere in the upper 2%, and still wish I knew a quarter as much (percentage-wise) about my current computer as I did about my //c.
Can you get more done with a program today than you could with the Apple II?
It also provides a life-changing service. Remember that products are sold for what they do, not for what their components cost.
Apple doesn't care about other peoples names but then cries over some company that has been using Macpro name for over 25 years before Apple.
It's trademark law, they're supposed to. You're trying to attribute hypocrisy to a situation that's actually created by the system.
Get whatever makes you happy. I'm saying consider what they do instead of what they might do. Otherwise you're just waiting to buy overpriced hardware that's fun to tinker with for a week.
I see no reason to be stuck with the programs Apple deems "appropriate" for me.
Until you're holding one of each and giving it a spin you're not going to see any reason.
Unless, of course, the mods think I sound insightful if I say "I see no reason to be stuck with half-assed Open Source copies of what Apple does, but it's just my opinion."?
I delayed in replying so that I could collect my thoughts a bit. Sorry about that, but I figured since you spent the time to write I should be a bit more meaningful than I have in the past rather than reply sooner.
I wouldn't necessarily desire that either, but the way I see things the person placed themselves in the situation. They are responsible for their actions, and the consequences arising from those actions.
I don't agree with this, but I don't disagree with it so much I find it offensive, either. There's definitely some merit to what you're saying. However, just because something is doesn't mean it's something that should be. In other words, if I walk up to a guy and say his wife is ugly, I have no reason to expect he shouldn't hit me. That doesn't mean that it's right that he did. I wouldn't have a right to complain about it, but I hope if I'm ever on the other end of that, I don't hit somebody. Not sure if that makes sense or not, but I mean that it's something I try to live by, too.
And, don't say that it's society's fault that they made the choices they did.
I don't believe anything like this. If a hungry man stole food from my fridge, I doubt I'd press charges. If he stole my laptop, we'd likely have some legal entanglement, there. I wouldn't care where he came from or what his history is, that's not cool. Nothing in the context of what we're talking about, however, would earn my sympathy. Really, sympathy is not part of my feelings, here. For me it's all about scope, not hugs.
I've pondered this quite a bit and I think our difference in perspective comes from where you measure the consequences of somebody's actions. If a dude wipes out a bank account and the victim goes homeless, if I am understanding you correctly, you feel the thief is guilty of making the homeless. I do not feel this way. I feel that the guy is guilty of stealing n-thousand dollars and that's it. Unless his intention was to ruin the guy (VERY unlikely in this context), he is not responsible for the collapse of the victim's lifestyle. Why? If the disappearance of money like that could cause that sort of chain reaction, you wouldn't need somebody acting criminally to ruin somebody's life. All that has to happen is for some low-paid clerk at a credit company to make a typo. And... that's happened. I watched a friend of mine not buy a house because a debt turned up on his report that wasn't his. Once notified, the company involved wouldn't correct it even though it was plainly obvious it wasn't his. That shouldn't be happening. Sadly I've heard this story a number of times. I've also had friends who have had their identity stolen, at worst they were out a couple of hundred bucks because in those cases their banks were responsive. As for me, myself, and I, I know that my bank account could suddenly go flat on a moment's notice. I have to be mindful of that. I'm a car accident or a freelance job (that needs gearing up) away from that happening.
I think part of my perspective here is that I don't think that scenario is likely. I talk to a lot of homeless people and yet to have heard "It all started from an email..." For that reason, it is difficult for me to take seriously. Combine that with my feeling that the crime is simply theft of certain amount of money, and you've got a situation where I don't think Slashdot Vigilante Justice is appropriate. I don't like vigilante'ism to begin with, I certainly don't think violence is in order when it's about money. Mainly, though, I do not trust Slashdot sensationalism as a fuel for justice, which is what prompted me to respond in the first place. There is so much posing going on with this site just to get that "+3 Insightful" tag that the idea of organizing something like that here makes me sick to my stomach.
Okay I think I've clarified my view enough here, anything else and I'm just making this post longer. I do want to add
Look, all you guys gotta do is kill the last male Bundy. If you're not up to it, then quitcher bitchen!
Ummmm.... I read the entire conversation. I also read your statement in which you couldn't be too mad for too long because money was one of the first forms of "virtualization".
That is not what I said. What I said was that I would not want him, pardon the crude terminology, fucked in the ass.
To that I say, so what? What's that got to do with anything? You get your identity stolen in our world today you are very liable to lose all your real property and your very real reputation and ability to work.
Uh, no. This is an unlikely extreme. People get their identity stolen all the time. It sucks. But it's not like we're seeing an increase in the homeless population, like in the picture you're painting.
You're the one that floated the idea that because money was a form of virtualization you couldn't stay mad for long.
No, I didn't. See above.
That you wanted to see no harm come to someone who had stolen everything from you.
No physical harm. Again, this is something you should have gotten from your mastery of the context of this conversation.
I just asked why.
No, you didn't. You used a few question marks, but you didn't actually ask me anything. You used questions to put words in my mouth and then responded to that. You have not, at any time, seriously asked for clarification of what I meant. Here, I'll use this thread as an example of what you're doing:
"Just because money is a "virtualized" form of wealth identity theft is any less heinous than stealing someone's real wealth?"
So you really think stealing $2,000 from somebody's bank account is as bad as rape? When sex is forced upon somebody, something they value, intimacy that is worth a great deal to them, has been violently ripped away from them. This is something that they would spend any amount of money to erase from their history, thus making it more valuable than $2,000. They would spend their whole lives trying to deal with that, whereas that $2,000 they would make back much sooner in their lives. Just because somebody can give what they have to as many people as they want, doesn't mean there is no value in it.
Obnoxious, isn't it?
What's with the urge to tell people that you're homosexual?
I think it serves two purposes. First it shows you that it is a lot more common than just a 'freak occurance'. Second is that it helps others feel more comfortable about coming out. The thing to keep in mind is that a lot of homosexual people feel like they have to hide it and a good chunk of those probably have a damn good reason to do so.
Somebody else said this, but it's worth repeating: It's for their sake, not yours.
So, stealing your good name--credit rating--and all that you own is no different to you than beating you in a game of monopoly? It's just virtual, not real?
Ah. Okay, two can play at this game: So, you think selling pot is worth jail time at your expense Mr. Taxpayer?
I skimmed the rest of your post and really there's nothing to reply to because you did not read the context of our conversation. I am impressed with how much blah-blah-blah can be generated over a sound-bite, though. Kudos.
You're still dealing with multiple vendors using multiple hardware configurations on a protocol intended to do a lot more than just ferry mouse inputs around.
Okay, I think you know a lot more about the inner workings of these devices than I do. Don't worry, I'm not challenging you there. But I don't think this is case of bad drivers or even a faulty implementation. I think it's a case of bluetooth having a more complex set up so it can support more devices without being a big security risk. I think what's going on is it's losing its connection with the mouse and wanting to reauthorize it before it starts doing its bidding. I would even be willing to bet that it isn't the software or the driver, but the OS doing this!
Logitech has non of this to worry about. They built a to-the-point device that doesn't even require a special driver. Yes, that's something they have to ramp up to learn, radiodigital is not easy. But at least they don't have to go through near as much testing or extra effort to support other devices. I think you're right, I don't have a full grasp of what it takes to get a signal to a device and back. But I think you're underestimating what sort of effort it takes to get one of these devices up and running on all the major OS's with a significant segment of cards it'll likely be talking to. It's all fine and good that it adheres to the spec, but is the real world that friendly about it or are they going to have to deal with problems like the OS cutting off communication to it for 'security reasons'?
That said, I'm not 100% sold on the idea that I'm right and you're wrong. So please don't feel like I'm not paying attention to what you said.
....Bluetooth devices will always be more reliable than proprietary hardware because Bluetooth has hundreds of companies all working together to design the communication protocols and hardware instead of one company hacking something together on their own.
That's exactly the reason why BT devices wouldn't be reliable. The dudes making their own proprietary protocol can make their own assumptions about what will connect. That's why I don't need to, for example, pair my mouse and its USB dongle. Ever.
Are there problems with Bluetooth devices which a shopper should be aware of?
I stopped using a BT mouse on my laptop because it wouldn't always wake up. I *think* it's because I turned off the mouse to save power (instead of just letting it sleep). It'd lose it's pairing credentials and have to negotiate with the OS again. I bought a Logitech mouse and the USB dongle was already permenantly paired to the mouse. Plug in, wait like 2 seconds, then I have a mouse.
Maybe the mouse just sucked, I dunno. Don't care, either. I'm so sick of tinkering with things like that it's not even funny.
This soon after the iPad is announced, 'Booklet' is considered a bad name? Really?
Initially I'd be angry and want to see him suffer. After some time had passed and I had cooled off, if I heard he had been raped in prison, I would not say "good."
It's money, one of the earliest forms of virtualization. Think about that before you fantasize about swinging a baseball bat around.
Given that Final Fantasy has not been ported to Android, nor has it been announced, I'm not sure why you need clarification on my point.
Monetary damage != violence.
"He sent me an email!! Let's bash his brains in!!!"
Super cool.
Take almost any application available for free on Linux, and there is someone publishing a $20 shareware equivalent for Mac OS(X), and hundreds to tens of thousands of Mac users paying for it.
Really? I've never heard of this. Do you have an example? Is that why shareware apps aren't made for Windows?