No but my point is that editing a text file without being able to read the font used in the menus isn't the impossible task you seem to think it is. Everything you need to do the job has a shortcut for it. Opening a terminal, launching Nano, editing and saving said config files all can be done with text commands and keyboard shortcuts.
I take it that you've never really used terminal commands much. Alt-Ctrl-Insert launches Eterm which you can then edit the relevant text files using nano, vi or whatever editor is your preference. If you do it right, it is possible to do all of this without the monitor even functioning let alone some small text. But yes it is somewhat of a pain in the arse for users not accustomed to working in a terminal by text commands alone.
E17 doesn't give you the option to do that without going into the config files and manually editing them. It's not something that is any problem for more experienced Linux users but it is the kind of thing that may hurt adoption of E-17 Ubuntu.
There is no GUI option to change the font size in Enlightenment but there is a way to change the font size; it involves editing config files. Although I should point out that Enlightenment puts a higher focus on having a light footprint than usability, it just doesn't seem to take it as far as Fluxbox does.
Yeah I liked the film too; guess that means we have bad taste in movies:) On a more serious note, I think that the problem most people had with the film was due to the theatrical release of Chronicles of Riddick as it had a few scenes cut out that a lot of people felt left the plot incomplete.
Theoretically yes, if a company has sufficient competition to deal with, it doesn't make any sense what so ever to hire based on prejudice. However, I would imagine that predjudices would become significant factors in the social contacts one often needs to build in order to climb the corporate ladder. That could very well skew the hiring demographic.
Actually we're about halfway through the interglacial period which begain ~10,000 years ago. The planet is actually quite cold for most of the time during these glacial periods except for a 15-20,000 year gap every 130,000 years (interglacial periods) and has been for ~5 million years. Most of Earth's history has indeed been warmer but there was also much higher CO2 levels in the air. Further, the poles don't really melt away completely unless the climate warms 5+ degrees C for prolonged periods of time. We've got ice cores going back the last 4 or 5 interglacial periods (600-800,000 years) which would be pretty hard to do if the poles had melted:)
You mean the one they lifted off a WWF propeganda sheet? No where in the models was such a prediction made; the IPCC along with the WWF fraked this up. The problem isn't so much the actual research being done, it's the IPCC being lax on the finer details of AGW which is as you can imagine, of great concern to the public.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the Republicans are suggesting that we do: keep pumping out billions of tons of CO2 a year and see what happens... There are easier ways to falsify AGW's predictions than to wait 40 years and take a look at the climate... Ocean acidification, changes in weather patterns over a statistically significant period of time that can not be explained through purely natural warming processes etc..
To clarify on the growth of Antarctic ice in some areas while receding in others. The overall ice growth in some areas exceeded ice loss in other areas although this is starting to change. Climate models win again.
You do realize that AGW predicts an increase in Antarctic ice right? But I suppose it's easier to continue being an armchair "expert" on global climate. The prediction of Antarctic ice growth was a falsifiable one. Had it not occured, it would have been evidence that the AGW models was flawed to some degree.
And Brazil is one of the countries that is deforesting the fastest in the world.
It is my understanding that much of that deforestation is illegal. The land gets cleared for ranching/farming, is exhausted rinse repeat. The Brazilian government has only recently started enforcing the law more strictly. That isn't to say that Ethanol production doesn't play a role, just that other factors weigh in heavily in so far as deforestation is concerned.
That may be a large part of why Dell kept trying to screw people who were trying to buy their Linux pre-loaded PCs. As far as I know, they straightened up their act to a degree resulting in a modest cost savings.
I know the crybaby anti-corporate crowd loves to make a big deal about how terrible that SC decision was, but it was fundamentally impossible for them to come to another decision.
You are correct about that. The two issues that lead to the decision were 1) do corps/people in groups have free speech rights? answer: yes. 2) is donation of money a form of speech? answer: Yes it is. It is correct but at the same time unfortunate. Money does influence what politicians do. Politicians work for their own interests and act toward those ends. Of course the corporations weren't terribly restricted in their proxy givings to various parties anyway. Now in so far as corporations being treated as persons, let me ask you this: when is the last time you blew a few hundred billion dollars on some get rich sceme just to be bailed out for being "too big to fail?" Right to life is apparently another pseudo-right some corporations now possess.
corporations have free speech and can as of the latest retarded court decision, donate to parties without limit. With the fraked up legal system we have, in some cases corporations appear to have rights above individuals.
These systems are often 50+ dollars cheaper than the Windows equivalent. Dell tried to pull a fast one on people that bought their Linux pre-loaded systems which is why I wouldn't recommend them. (of course if you're a geek you'd know they and Best buy were crap anyways)
At no point should a corporation hold an advantage in tax law compared to individuals. The deductions and various complications of tax law in corporation's favor should not exist.
That is a good argument for fixing the income tax system as it applies to individuals but a very poor one for giving corporations tax advantages over individuals.
Bob paid for a Kevlar vest but it turned out to be made of spray painted cardboard. The manufacturer (bankers/scammers) defrauded Bob which lead to his death. The SEC was supposed to ensure that Bob's vest was actually Kevlar but didn't. The system did fail to protect Bob and now he's dead.
Individuals get taxed on their gross income so why is it so absurd that the poor starving corporations be taxed the same way? As things are now, individuals don't get to deduct anywhere near what corporations do.
Slashdot Mirror
No but my point is that editing a text file without being able to read the font used in the menus isn't the impossible task you seem to think it is. Everything you need to do the job has a shortcut for it. Opening a terminal, launching Nano, editing and saving said config files all can be done with text commands and keyboard shortcuts.
I take it that you've never really used terminal commands much. Alt-Ctrl-Insert launches Eterm which you can then edit the relevant text files using nano, vi or whatever editor is your preference. If you do it right, it is possible to do all of this without the monitor even functioning let alone some small text. But yes it is somewhat of a pain in the arse for users not accustomed to working in a terminal by text commands alone.
E17 doesn't give you the option to do that without going into the config files and manually editing them. It's not something that is any problem for more experienced Linux users but it is the kind of thing that may hurt adoption of E-17 Ubuntu.
There is no GUI option to change the font size in Enlightenment but there is a way to change the font size; it involves editing config files. Although I should point out that Enlightenment puts a higher focus on having a light footprint than usability, it just doesn't seem to take it as far as Fluxbox does.
Yeah I liked the film too; guess that means we have bad taste in movies :) On a more serious note, I think that the problem most people had with the film was due to the theatrical release of Chronicles of Riddick as it had a few scenes cut out that a lot of people felt left the plot incomplete.
Theoretically yes, if a company has sufficient competition to deal with, it doesn't make any sense what so ever to hire based on prejudice. However, I would imagine that predjudices would become significant factors in the social contacts one often needs to build in order to climb the corporate ladder. That could very well skew the hiring demographic.
Actually we're about halfway through the interglacial period which begain ~10,000 years ago. The planet is actually quite cold for most of the time during these glacial periods except for a 15-20,000 year gap every 130,000 years (interglacial periods) and has been for ~5 million years. Most of Earth's history has indeed been warmer but there was also much higher CO2 levels in the air. Further, the poles don't really melt away completely unless the climate warms 5+ degrees C for prolonged periods of time. We've got ice cores going back the last 4 or 5 interglacial periods (600-800,000 years) which would be pretty hard to do if the poles had melted :)
You mean the one they lifted off a WWF propeganda sheet? No where in the models was such a prediction made; the IPCC along with the WWF fraked this up. The problem isn't so much the actual research being done, it's the IPCC being lax on the finer details of AGW which is as you can imagine, of great concern to the public.
Give an example of one that is sourced.
This is what often happens when initial estimates are conservative.
The IPCC did royally frak up on the himalayan glaciers, that is indisputable. However, the DailyMail distorted the issue to its own ends.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the Republicans are suggesting that we do: keep pumping out billions of tons of CO2 a year and see what happens... There are easier ways to falsify AGW's predictions than to wait 40 years and take a look at the climate... Ocean acidification, changes in weather patterns over a statistically significant period of time that can not be explained through purely natural warming processes etc..
To clarify on the growth of Antarctic ice in some areas while receding in others. The overall ice growth in some areas exceeded ice loss in other areas although this is starting to change. Climate models win again.
You do realize that AGW predicts an increase in Antarctic ice right? But I suppose it's easier to continue being an armchair "expert" on global climate. The prediction of Antarctic ice growth was a falsifiable one. Had it not occured, it would have been evidence that the AGW models was flawed to some degree.
Farming of any sourt uses a substantial amount of water, plants grown for Ethanol conversion are no exception.
It is my understanding that much of that deforestation is illegal. The land gets cleared for ranching/farming, is exhausted rinse repeat. The Brazilian government has only recently started enforcing the law more strictly. That isn't to say that Ethanol production doesn't play a role, just that other factors weigh in heavily in so far as deforestation is concerned.
That's naive. Any cost savings get funneled right into the profit machine long before you see any of it.
one can be socially authoritarian (socially right wing) and have no problem with "socialism." The economic right however might.
That may be a large part of why Dell kept trying to screw people who were trying to buy their Linux pre-loaded PCs. As far as I know, they straightened up their act to a degree resulting in a modest cost savings.
You are correct about that. The two issues that lead to the decision were 1) do corps/people in groups have free speech rights? answer: yes. 2) is donation of money a form of speech? answer: Yes it is. It is correct but at the same time unfortunate. Money does influence what politicians do. Politicians work for their own interests and act toward those ends. Of course the corporations weren't terribly restricted in their proxy givings to various parties anyway. Now in so far as corporations being treated as persons, let me ask you this: when is the last time you blew a few hundred billion dollars on some get rich sceme just to be bailed out for being "too big to fail?" Right to life is apparently another pseudo-right some corporations now possess.
corporations have free speech and can as of the latest retarded court decision, donate to parties without limit. With the fraked up legal system we have, in some cases corporations appear to have rights above individuals.
These systems are often 50+ dollars cheaper than the Windows equivalent. Dell tried to pull a fast one on people that bought their Linux pre-loaded systems which is why I wouldn't recommend them. (of course if you're a geek you'd know they and Best buy were crap anyways)
At no point should a corporation hold an advantage in tax law compared to individuals. The deductions and various complications of tax law in corporation's favor should not exist.
That is a good argument for fixing the income tax system as it applies to individuals but a very poor one for giving corporations tax advantages over individuals.
Bob paid for a Kevlar vest but it turned out to be made of spray painted cardboard. The manufacturer (bankers/scammers) defrauded Bob which lead to his death. The SEC was supposed to ensure that Bob's vest was actually Kevlar but didn't. The system did fail to protect Bob and now he's dead.
Individuals get taxed on their gross income so why is it so absurd that the poor starving corporations be taxed the same way? As things are now, individuals don't get to deduct anywhere near what corporations do.