Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Just as long as tabs can be turned OFF by the u (Score 1) 249

Another example: dock color. This is such a dumb preference but I cannot imagine why they don't make it user customizable. I like dark colored dock backgrounds, they look better on the desktop backgrounds I choose. But Apple simply will not make them customizable.

Actually, you've got two choices, light and dark, which sounds like it might suit you. It's not in the Dock Control Panel, of course. It's in General.

Comment Re: Stupid people (Score 1) 129

Keeping in mind that it wasn't me that typed M$

I'd wondered if I should've clarified that in my post. In any event, it has been now. I'm really just responding to you because you're not an AC (I'll explain soon). Just looking to have conversation about it, not tell anyone off.

do you give more veracity to pretty people because you think a pretty person is smarter than an ugly person?

Not to the extent I can be aware of my own biases. Again, I chose to respond to you because you're not an AC. It's not because I think logging in lends veracity to your argument, it's just that engaging in conversation with a group of unknown number or reputation has proven to be very unrewarding in my experience. When I do make judgements like this, I like to at least be able to stand by them with reasons

I don't write people off just because they write 'M$'. You have your reasons when you do, and it doesn't really bother me. As another poster said, I have to admit considering the company's abusive behaviour it's to criticise them - and it is. I don't look down on people who think and say MS are shady.

All I'm saying is, coming from someone who used to write M$, and does no longer: as I've matured I've found it a lot easier to make my point heard when I don't decorate it with extra baggage that prompts your listeners to start making judgements about you.

Whether the judgements are sound or not, people will make them. Sometimes people you're genuinely trying to sell yourself too, no randoms on Slashdot. All things being equal, the post without the dollar sign embellishment will be better received, in my opinion.

Sounds like your people could determine if something is truth or a lie just by performing a find on it, for M$, and not even read it. That sounds to me like exceptional intelligence, you agree? The way to get to the absolute truth.

I don't have a "people" that all think like I do. I'll forgive your snark on the basis I think you've misunderstood me a little.

Comment Re: Stupid people (Score 1) 129

When you write it as 'M$' it tends to give the impression one of the big issues you have with them is they've made a lot of money, and that you make a point of expressing that whether or not it is necessary or relevant. It may be that you actually want to give that impression, in which case power to you.

You'll probably come across as juvenile, this may be right or wrong and again, this may be your intention.

Fact is, some people are going to switch off when they see you write "M$", or refer to their company by the stock symbol, as if that's a reasonable thing to do outside the context of actually investing in that stock.

When you're making an entirely valid and objective criticism of their company's behaviour / products (and I know you'll agree that's not difficult to do), you've nothing to gain by putting off a portion of readers by making them think you're a nutjob, even if you are.

Comment Re:They really are getting desperate (Score 1) 260

Yeah, I can see whole city blocks of dev shops starting up and finding new ways stuff those files paths as long as possible. Eventually, all files will have had every scrap of data and metadata pulled out, base64 encoded or similar and stuffed into the pathname. A 4GB movie file would simply become a ~6GB pathname. Actual files would be unnecessary, just directories and their names, lovely long make Microsoft money names!

Submission + - Prominent civil liberties expert says he and Snowden were wrong on NSA 1

An anonymous reader writes: Last week, Geoffrey Stone, a longtime civil liberties stalwart, Constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago, and member of the National Advisory Council of the American Civil Liberties Union, moderated a live discussion with Edward Snowden from Russia. As a member of the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, Stone was given unfettered access to unfettered access to our national security apparatus, and told the NSA what he thought. This week, Stone offered more detail on his own findings that only someone with direct knowledge can provide: "So before I began the work on the review group, my general view was that, from what I learned in the media, the NSA had run amok and created these programs without appropriate approval or authorization or review. And whatever I thought of the merits of the programs, my assumption was that it was illegitimate because it didn't have appropriate review and approval. What surprised me the most was that this was completely wrong. [...] The more I worked with the NSA, the more respect I had for them as far as staying within the bounds of what they were authorized to do. And they were careful and had a high degree of integrity. My superficial assumption of the NSA being a bad guy was completely wrong. [...] I came to the view that they were well intentioned, that they were designed in fact to collect information for the purpose of ferreting out potential terrorist plots both in the U.S. and around the world and that was their design and purpose." Stone provided detail and examples, including rationale and justifications for the review group's findings, and concluded that Snowden "was unduly arrogant, didn't understand the limitations of his own knowledge and basically decided to usurp the authority of a democracy."

Slashdot Top Deals

Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.