bh3

I agree with this. While I don't find the current tab system particularly wonderful - back when I used arch linux I think I just used ratpoison /w windows mapped to numbers, this solution means that the user would need to either understand the current mode the task switching program is in at any given time or actually interpret the order of the programs. Yes, it minimizes key-strokes between the most used windows, but it also means that each window might have a connection and behavior that could change at any time. It might work, but I'm sure there are better solutions.

Actually, empty praise bugs me more than anything. Even earned praise can seem awkward for me if it is earned in an ill Manner. Still, my writing is rather horrid. So bravo for that call, at least on my part. Now, since she neglected a solution after all that speculation, anybody have any tips on improving your writing -- preferably free online material (but there's always the library otherwise).

I'm personally getting the feeling that downplaying it was more of a trip up on their part. They wake up, find they are suddenly being viewed as the devil, and for some strange reason want people to believe that things are not as bad as they look. The problem, though, is they should never have said that directly. They should have given us every reason to believe that things are not as bad as they look and have us come to that conclusion for ourselves. They should also get some PR people on pay; they probably need them more than the added security.

Might have been inspired indeed. I doubt it's a large issue though if the code for each is unique. If the code were not unique then I'd be offended.

Then the other dude lowers his hand 1 inch. And yeah, same type of thing I was going for, preferably in that case it should land on a table unaffected by either party. Preferably the guy calling it shouldn't see the trajectory, he might be an alien who could calculate it. lol. Generally though you want both parties to be ignorant towards what is happening in my opinion.

Only thing that comes to mind is to add some sort of blind element. For example having two people, one flips two coins but both remain ignorant of the actual outcome and assume that they have opposing interests (and so would not be likely to try to help the other in any way). Depending on the outcome of the preliminary flip, the one of the second person is either kept the same or inversed. Again still not perfect but removes some level of manipulation. Which is sort of interesting because you'd have to wonder should the preliminary tosser try to make the probability as even or skewed as possible. If he is likely to skew it it becomes a whole new scenario.