That's a really sad statement on the state of society. Whatever happened to quiet, friendly communities where you can throw your windows open to let in the fresh air and chat with passersby?

Oh well, I suppose that once the next few crops of children grow up with no privacy, nobody who'd miss it will be around anymore.

I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why I myself hate OOo's interface, and I still can't quite nail it down. A lot of it was the fugly default menu/button scheme, though export OOO_FORCE_DESKTOP=gnome fixed that. Part of it is undoubtedly the fact that OOo can't seem to get text antialiasing consistently right, and actually went backwards with 3.0 -- the line weights are all off, even on files that looked decent in 2.4. Part of it is the fact that it takes a measurable fraction of a second (sometimes more than a second) to just open a damn menu when I click on it -- I haven't seen any other app in years that's so sluggish. Part of it is that distracting two-tone background on row and column headers they added to 3.0. But overall, there's just something about it that makes me involuntarily go "eww" whenever an OOo window pops up.

I suspect a lot of these sorts of problems stem from OOo's apparent insistence on using its own homebuilt code for practically everything. Having written multiplatform code myself, I know that it can be difficult to try and connect the same code to completely different frameworks, and I know the temptation to code around the OS to make everything work the same way everywhere. But really, are most users going to care (or even know) about slight visual differences between platforms? Or are they going to be more interested in a program that's easy to use and (especially) easy to look at? I'd lean toward the latter.

Just like the sun!

Burma Shave

Now I grant you that some XKCD strips are less funny, thought-provoking, or what-have-you than others. But someone actually has nothing better to do with their time than to rip on each and every strip?

That's . . . sad.

I hate to go against the /. groupthink, but after listening to the MP3 of the hearing and reading the opinion myself, I have to agree with the appeals court's decision. Admittedly I can't speak to the advisory mandamus issue (I'll leave that to another poster), but a common-sense reading of rule 83.3 would suggest that the court's authority to allow broadcast is indeed limited; otherwise I would expect 83.3(c) to have been written something like "A party may petition the court to permit..." or just "It is permitted to...". Given that, and since Tenenbaum's side didn't argue any higher authority (except the right to a public trial, and as the judges stated, that's not being infringed any more than in any other trial), I have to agree that the decision is fair and reasonable.

Now, I certainly don't think this is a desirable outcome. But the purpose of the courts is to enforce the rules, and if they can't enforce their own rules, that doesn't give them much moral authority to enforce others, does it? What really ought to happen--as Judge Lipez says in his (her?) concurring opinion at the end of the PDF--is for the rule to be reexamined in light of Internet technology so this sort of problem doesn't reoccur.

I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about loading the comments page. I've never noticed any delay in loading the reply page.

I think you've got it flipped around -- I'm arguing that I don't need or want those services even if others like them, and therefore they shouldn't be forced on me. (I probably shouldn't have carried over the "functioning brains" bit, but it was convenient.)

In a number of cases (not all, so maybe it has something to do with the library used or the particular page layout), I see floating widgets flicker for an instant whenever they move. The current D2 is at least smart enough to pin the widget to the top once you've scrolled far enough down, I'll grant -- so maybe it wouldn't be that much of an issue if I used D2 more extensively -- but the flickering as I start to scroll is just really distracting.

I never said anything about the Thai people in my post. If you're under the impression that the people are themselves the government, allow me to point out that Thailand is not a direct democracy.

No, those of us with functioning brains realize the download size doesn't matter -- it's the response speed. Since the majority of the download is auxiliary content (graphics, Javascript, what have you), a few kilobytes of text one way or the other won't make any noticeable difference

Some of us like to, you know, Read The Fine Article first.

Honestly, the delay had never registered with me. Maybe my ADHD quotient is too low?

I haven't changed my threshold in... good grief, I can't even remember. Years, anyway.

I've actually tried the new-style discussion interface several times since it was introduced, and frankly I just can't bring myself to like it. Partly because I hate floating widgets (they flicker too much), partly because I can't (i.e. haven't felt like taking the time to) figure out how comments are ordered, and partly, well, just because; maybe it's the Office 2007 ribbon effect of being annoyed by an arbitrarily changed interface.

Perhaps you missed the part where the OP wrote, "King Bhumibol Adulyadej is actually against the lèse majesté law"? It's the government that's at fault here, not the King. And notice that he's not grabbing power from the government to abolish the law himself, either; he's only stating his wishes and hoping that the true seat of power (the government) listens to him.

tr/hm/ms/

(Clearly, I need to click the Preview button three times...)

North Korea reportedly claims the launch was a success and there's now a satellite orbiting with an inclination of 40.6deg, perigee of 490km, apogee of 1426km, and orbital period of 104h12m, broadcasting military songs along with tracking data.

Indeed, a most worrisome trend. Hopefully people will begin having serious discussions on the merits and demerits of this sort of technology, rather than its proponents merely slapping it in others' faces without so much as a by-your-leave.

The same is true where I come from. (If you'll note, I never defended the specific actions referred to in the article.) That, however, does not excuse Google's rudeness.

However (as many others have pointed out), what is not commonplace is posting those for the world to see, especially when taken methodically across a wide area as Street View does. Also note that people looking at houses for sale typically take pictures of... wait for it... the houses that are for sale, which is generally not only permitted but even encouraged by the owner or realtor.

They're not "his special" rules; they're actually fairly common and well-understood. (Or at least, were at one time. Maybe there's a generational gap here? I don't consider myself an old fogy at 31, but...)

One aspect of politeness is voluntarily refraining from an act which disturbs others, even if you don't agree that it should disturb them (or even understand why it does). Thus, "because I don't want it" is ipso facto a valid reason for stating that an act is impolite.

As to why the OP doesn't like it, I can't answer that myself, of course. But in general, social rules exist to help society function -- that is, to help people come together as a cohesive unit for the good of all. Now, the Internet may be encouraging a new set of social rules which (like Street View) give openness and visibility a higher priority; but even if you subscribe to such a "new world order", that doesn't make it any less impolite to violate others' pre-established social rules. And if you simply didn't know about them, then the polite response is to say either "I'm sorry, I didn't know and won't do that again" or "let's discuss whether those rules are appropriate", not to blithely ignore them and continue with your own ways.