Comment Re: 1..2..3 before SJW (Score 1) 786
Die in a fire, you anti-hellenic faggot.
But wouldn't faggots be pro-hellenic, or are the stories I heard about 'doing it like Greeks' incorrect?
Die in a fire, you anti-hellenic faggot.
But wouldn't faggots be pro-hellenic, or are the stories I heard about 'doing it like Greeks' incorrect?
Then you're an idiot. You don't get your own way with the US government just because you wield a gun. It never ends well for the idiot libertarians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
If you're that easily angered, you probably shouldn't be allowed to have a gun.
Nice to see breakthrough research like this coming from a single-payer healthcare system like the UK. When people start saying that the only places that can afford groundbreaking medical research are the ones where the "customers" pay a fortune, it'll be good to be able to point them to things like this.
Simon
The FCC exercised much more control over television broadcasting
Oh, you're one of
Industry shill spotted. Go fuck yourself.
--
BMO
Though this is somewhat a troll (the testosterone part particularly)... YOu do fail to miss a point.
At least in the states, we have the history of the Colonial Independence. We didn't have an army at the time, mostly a bunch of guys with guns that did eventually beat the British (with a bit of help from the French and some Polish help), or at least made subjugating us a bigger pain in the ass than letting us go.
Im sure there are other examples if you search for War for Independence. I need to get other stuff done so I can't research this properly.
This is not a theoretical model, it happened. You can argue that it's unlikely to be done again, but you can't say it's never been done.
The only true statement in that message is your signature.
--
BMO
So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks. Because it's not "lawful content".
but.that's.wrong.jpg
Net Neutrality is all about classifying the ISPs as what the other telecom and freight companies are: common-carriers.
Verizon, as a telephone company, doesn't censor "illegal" voice traffic, does it? They do not, last I checked. That's because Verizon is a common-carrier and is not held liable for telephone content over its wires. UPS is not held liable for a pound of weed being shipped through its system, either, because they are a common-carrier. Being held not liable is exchanged for the duty they have to not discriminate against customers and traffic for the common good.
Back in the day of the local BBS being your ISP, system operators could discriminate against abusive/disruptive/trolling users (we wanted that freedom, because resources were tight) being able to ban users/delete traffic. Because BBSes were classified as "information services" (as ISPs are classified right now), holding a kind of editorial power, we fought against common-carrier classification because it would have been onerous. But once a sysop exercised editorial power he/she was held liable for illegal/defamatory/copyright-infringing content hosted on the drives.
Like what happened to Rusty&Edie's.
ISPs have grown beyond the local BBS for well over a decade-and-a-half and ISPs are no longer "editorial." They have become common-carriers in everything but name, and the ISPs like TimeWarner/Cox/Comcast/Charter, etc, want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to be able to discriminate various kinds of traffic and retain editorial power while being not held liable for that traffic.
Sorry, no, they don't get to do that. They are now common-carriers and should be classified that way.
And that's what Net Neutrality is all about.
--
BMO
There was nothing wrong with Empire Strikes Back.
Those are hyperlinks. That's the generally accepted, even traditional, look for a hyperlink. You do know what a hyperlink [apple.com] is, do you not? When I click a hyperlink, I expect to arrive on a web page forthwith. That's what they mean. But that's not what these mean. These mean... random stuff. Normal words... are words. Underlined and/or blue-colored words are hyperlinks.
You're making a distinction that doesn't exist. A hyperlink is a clickable item of text. What happens after you click on it is irrelevant to the point because you've already worked out that it's a clickable thing by the time you've clicked on it.
And they haven't been predictably blue-coloured and underlined since the 1990s.
Buttons, despite Ive's insane, drooling jihad against skeuomorphism, should look like you are expected to reach over and press them.
You say it like an item of faith. Despite your long post you provide no justification for putting boxes around clickable things to pretend they're buttons. Again, back in the 1990s, toolbar icons used to have boxes round them to pretend they were buttons. But we don't need that kind of hand-holding any more. We know we can click on them without needing those boxes.
When someone's learned to ride a bike they don't need training wheels any more.
How would you react to a stereo that had no buttons, just words on its face? Is that intuitive? Of bloody course it isn't. You press a button, it depresses, it looks different, it clicks, you know to expect the action to occur.
Those are actual buttons, not pretend ones. Look, if you have something made out of wood, it has a wood grain, and that's very nice. If you have something made of plastic, then decorating it to look like it's wood is not nice, it's cheap and unnecessary.
The over-love of buttons leads you to horrible designs like this:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/...
You are in no position to criticise anyone's design chops, let alone Ive's.
You had my curiosity, then I read this:
ESR says he'll match funds toward the purchase of the needed hardware, so if you want to help drive him into bankruptcy, now's your chance.
Now you have my attention.
(Not enough to RTFS however. This is Slashdot...)
No, your ORIGINAL point was that any individual word, by itself, was just meaningless sounds, and doesn't cause harm.
Correct. And that's NOT what your "experiment" was. Two people have told you, several times.
Wow, just
No, but believing self-censorship of an arbitrary list of words, or replacing single letters in them with punctuation makes you a better person most certainly is a sign of irrational thinking.
Do you by comparison hold people with Tourettes in very high esteem based on their use of swear words? Or is it because you lack the self-control to control what comes out of your own mouth, so you feel a need to belittle those who can do better?
No and no. You really are showing your ignorance here. Rejecting an assertion isn't the same as asserting the opposite.
Why do people swear? It's an emotional response - it "feels good." So rather than deal with a situation rationally, they respond emotionally.
You could say the same about words of affection. There's nothing wrong with emotion, especially if it makes you feel good. It doesn't indicate an inability to think.
But this isn't about emotion. It's about a list of unsayable words.
And too often, that emotional response becomes the goal, rather than solving the problem at hand - people just start swearing at each other as debate gets more and more heated, because it makes them feel good. This is a dysfunctional response over the medium and long term, but it "sure feels good" in the short term.
Now you're talking about arguing. Which again isn't about "swear words". People can argue just as harshly without "swear words". And most of the time swear words are used it's not in an argument.
Same excuse that addicts use for any other dysfunctional behavior. But it's still the dysfunctional, immature response for dealing with life's problems.
You're beginning to sound like a temperance movement. How successful was prohibition? Was the demon drink really the root of all ills, or was it a pleasant pastime for most people, with only a few having a problem? Were the teetotallers really better people?
I don't have to. I can do the math.
That's your mistake. Thinking you can judge through math rather than actually seeing one.
Beyond a certain reasonable limit, pixel density does nothing for me at all.
But you haven't yet found out what that limit is.
I accept that some people will want screens larger than 27". But that's not what I was disputing. It was your assertion that the higher resolution would make no difference because your maths tells you they are invisible.
As I say, having seen the difference between normal screens and retina screens on MacBooks, it's night and day. The clarity is jaw-dropping. It's like looking at something printed on paper, not a screen at all.
Nope. Your ORIGINAL point was words by themselves. NO extra context. Single words.
I know what my original point is. Your misunderstanding it doesn't change what it was. I've explained several times, so I can only conclude now that you're too stupid to get it.
Oh, and your "explanation" is just words
Sentences.
Why? Because we don't need training wheels any more.
Continuing the web analogy, back in the 1990s, we needed blue or purple permanently underlined text to indicate a link. Now we are more sophisticated and don't need to have it spelled out in the same way on every page. As a result designers have more scope for making pages look attractive. On occasions when you find a page that hasn't been updated since the 1990s, it's horrendously ugly.
On native UIs, it used to be the case that every toolbar icon had it's own box, to show that it was clickable button. But that was abandoned more than a decade ago, with no loss. No one wants that anymore. Here's reminders of button toolbars:
http://toastytech.com/guis/win...
http://lscr.berkeley.edu/advic...
You see it's been a long time since every clickable thing in a UI needed to be dressed up as a button. Yosemite is just another step towards a less fussy UI that accentuates the content rather than unnecessary chrome.
As to the save icon, I have't see a floppy disk icon for years. Not because it's been replaced by a different icon, but because on a modern OS it shouldn't be necessary for the user to initiate saving their data, other than the first time to give it a name. Closing a window autosaves, prompting for a filename if it doesn't already have one. And autosaves happen periodically inbetween times.
If you think UIs should stop, where do you think? Some people (particulary Linux fans) think they should have stopped at CLIs. Do you think they should have stopped at Mac OS 9? Windows 95? What makes you think that the UI as of 6 months ago was the perfect place to stop?
The reality is most people are a bit reactionary. They don't like change when it happens. But once they get used to the change, they look back at the old thing they wanted to keep, and realise it was worse.
At some point, I predict that someone high enough in the food chain is going to realize that the emperor has no clothes, and people actually like shine, gloss, transparency, gradients, and color schemes other than white on white (Apple) or kindergarten construction paper (Microsoft), and we'll see a return to those types of design elements.
Actually Yosemite introduces some transparency that wasn't there before. That is a mistake, and I predict that will disappear, along with all the other cheap embellishments you list. Part of the reason they were there is that gradients and shadows can pimp up relatively low resolution displays. The eye doesn't pick out jaggies so much if you blend colors. With new retina displays, beautiful design can come with accurate hard edges, both in typography and in graphical elements.
You seem to think it's just a matter of fashion. For sure there's some fashion in there, but there are other more real motivations that guide where that fashion goes. And there's no reason for it to go back to novelty lickable items and pseudo 3D.
Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.
