Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Hit them back (Score 1) 783

by adminma232 (#34909396) Attached to: Wikileaks To Name Swiss Bank Tax Evaders
I think you missed the point Monkeedude was trying to make. He is not talking about when businesses actually relocate their office & plant but when they set up a one person office in a tax haven to avoid paying tax. See Microsoft for an example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/sep/23/microsoft-tax-avoidance-questions

The clear point the article above is trying to make is that Microsoft have basically nothing at all to do with Nevada, but have set up some shell office there simply to avoid paying tax to Washington State (which is where most of there software development is actually done). Seems wrong doesn't it? They get to use all the public infrastructure paid for by Washington State taxpayers but they themselves feel like they shouldn't have to contribute...

Comment: Re:Plumbers telling electricians what to do. (Score 1) 460

by geekoid (#32271848) Attached to: New "Circuit Breaker" Imposed To Stop Market Crash

"If you arent an expert how do you know who to talk to? How am I gonna know im getting top class electrical work done or getting ripped off by some shady contractor.
I bet if you think about it you can answer that question. if you can't, then I am a top rated contractor who is worth 500 an hour. Hire me.
Dude, come on.

In this case you read there papers,. look at the industry as a whole. Look at their education, talk to several of them.

There is a real problem with the market right now with a high risk.

It's you, who isn't thinking.

Comment: Re:Best use-case? (Score 1) 132

by gmhowell (#32231776) Attached to: Google Android Interface For the Chevy Volt

Problems arise when the sensor parameters are incorrect. For example, the O2 sensor on my car is indicated as f'ed up and in need of replacement if it is out by about half a std. deviation. The engine management and exhaust emissions are spot on, but it fails emissions inspections due to the stupid light and idiotic programming of said light.

Comment: Re:Details (Score 1) 218

by sznupi (#32231694) Attached to: Politically Correct Zoology

Not really, those laws are a legal fiction anyway (using literary term here, not judgical one); otherwise pretty much most religious group would have to be immediatelly prosecuted against...most of the other.
Such laws serve mostly the dominant faith. Or generally are brought over only when it's convenient.

Comment: Re:Limited study (Score 1) 248

by thrawn_aj (#32230722) Attached to: 10-Year Cell Phone / Cancer Study Is Inconclusive
Yes. Because a brilliant person wanting to be rich decides on research physics as ticket to the pot 'o' gold. If that's what you truly believe, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you ...

Oh yes. Nearly forgot - 2/10 (needs a better username)

Also, I suspect GP was being sarcastic and your detector (or possibly mine) was broken :p

Comment: Re:Sounds to me... (Score 2, Insightful) 1067

by boxwood (#32227356) Attached to: Steve Jobs Says PC Folks' World Is Slipping Away

I'd say Mac OSX has shitty UI. The dock is just kludging together the taskbar concept from windows, the quicklaunch bar and the notification area into one big The problem is it doesn't do any of those very well. When I click an icon on the dock, I don't know if I'm clicking on a task or a launcher. Well I guess there's a little dot beside the icon when its a task, but that just indicates the app is loaded, not that I've had it open... many of those dots are there because MacOS decided to start that app at boot.

If you have more than one window open in a single app, There's no easy way to switch between them. I can right-click on the icon and select on, or press F9 and use expose. Expose, while it looks cool, is bad UI because it requires me to watch an animation, look at all the windows and pick out the one I want. When you use expose the windows are always in a different spot so you have to re-orient yourself everytime you use it. With a real taskbar, the button for your window is always in the same location.

If I want to open a new window for an app, I have to check for a tiny dot. If there isn't one then just click the icon on the dock. If there is a dot, then I have to right-click and select new window. If I happen to not notice the dot and just click on the icon, I get the window I had open before. FAIL.

I guess you're not supposed to have more than one window open for a single app in MacOS. except if you want to move a file to a different folder you have to have two finder windows open because MacOSX doesn't allow you to cut and paste files. Odlly copy and paste works ok, just not cut and paste. Very inconsistent.

The problem with the MacOSX UI is its constantly working against itself. You need to right-click more often in MacOSX than any other OS but apple seems to discourage right-clicking by providing single button mouses and having only one button on their laptops. Yeah you can buy another mouse or do a two-finger click but it seems like apple doesn't want you to use one button on the hardware side but makes you use two button on the software side. The dock makes it difficult to manage an application that has more than one window open, so it discourages you from having multiple windows open for a single app, but finder requires you to have two windows open to move files.

My experieince with MacOSX in general is that if you do things the way Steve Jobs thinks you should be doing things, everything works fine. But if you stray from that path, everything becomes unnecessarily difficult. The Apple slogan shouldn't be "think different" it should be "think like steve jobs".

Posting this from Ubuntu on a Macbook Pro. I tried MacOSX for three months and then had to install an OS that makes sense.

Comment: Re:Simple Solution (Score 1) 553

by Hurricane78 (#32224088) Attached to: Wikipedia Is Not Amused By Entry For xkcd-Coined Word

Wikipedia is a successful project. You can read mostly well-written summaries of nearly every single area of human knowledge, and for the most part it's accurate and accessible with nice diagrams etc.

I assume, you being an intelligent human being, assumed a “...for me” behind every sentence. Because else they don’t make sense. Since you can’t possibly know this for all the >6.5 billion people on the planet. ;)
And this again is the exact same problem that I meant in my above comment. Everything on Wikipedia is by definition hearsay from untrustworthy sources. We only accept it, because it fits our inner model. But most of that, let’s face it, is also based on hearsay. That’s how our society works, and it’s usually good, except for when it’s not.

but when I think about it I know that I wouldn't want to deal with ridiculous one-off articles like malamanteau just because people are having fun dicking around.

That’s the nice thing about my approach. See, the conflict is that 1. you want to decide what you want to see without effort, but 2. you do not EVER have the right to decide what others want to see. (Otherwise, point 1 would either fall, or make you a dictator [like Wikipedia now].)
And my approach is the following: Cascading trust relationships.
Imagine there being N versions of X articles. Now Jimmy Wales could choose specific versions of a specific set of articles, and call it “Wikipedia”. BUT: So could everybody else. AND: Your set could build on other sets, extending them. Including rules of priority. Like: General base from Wikipedia, quantum physics from HawKing, politics from StewBeef, and these couple of articles should be that version. Or generically:
myWiki = articleVersionSet(100% trusted,EMPTY_SET)
    where articleVersionSet($trust,$partialSet) = $newPartialSet ++ articleVersionSet($trust-1,$newPartialSet)
        where $newPartialSet = $partialSet ++ (articleVersionSet
            from (the one
                of $trustworthyPersons
                with $priorityOfTrustworthiness[$thatPerson] >= $trust
            )
            for $trustedTopics[$thatPerson]
            if (not already in $partialSet))
        )

As you can see, this means only a tiny set of decisions (min=1) is required, to get your individual Wikipedia. Without telling anybody else what to do. With maximum possible freedom (100%). The key factor is your network of trust. As in real life. Who’da thunka that? ^^
People could dick as much around as they wanted. If nobody trusts them in the first place, nobody will notice. If somebody does, either your friend will lost trust in him, or you will lose trust in your friend. Which counters *any* kind of abuse nicely. :)

Comment: Re:Right on Adobe! (Score 1) 731

by BasilBrush (#32222972) Attached to: Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ

You have a false "Obj-C vs Flash" dichotomy. This has nothing at all to do about Flash. I've never wrote a single line of code in it, and hopefully never will. But Jobs also prevent me from using the good stuff such as, say, O'Caml or Scala, and that is a travesty.

Hence why I wrote "Flash (or similar)". Because it's not just about preventing Flash, but about preventing any non ObjC/Cocoa Touch platform. It's perfectly understandable that you'd want to be free to use those languages. It's perfectly understandable that Apple wouldn't want the results of that programming to be sold through their App Store. Apple rightly wins the conflict, because it's their store.

Comment: Re:Summary says what? (Score 1) 202

by BobMcD (#32213694) Attached to: No HTML5 Hulu Anytime Soon

It's an attempt for the networks to get a foothold on the Web as a cartel, instead of through their separate Web presences.

You don't have any workable facts to back that up.

Why did you omit my quote about how the networks weren't originally intended to even be involved with the project when it was announced? Do you refuse to believe that? Do you deny that it is was ever stated, or assert that it was false when it was stated?

From where I sit you're going to need to provide more information other than who the present owners happen to be. Otherwise we're safe to assume the Ripley's people colluded to invent the Guinness Book of World Records. They're the present owners so they clearly created it as an anti-competitive measure against other kinds of weird facts. At least in a universe where acquisitions never happen and present owners always define the creator's intent.

Spurious, indeed.

A bug in the code is worth two in the documentation.

Working...