I can't help agreeing. I got to really liked GNOME 2. Bummer it had to be reinvented. I switched from Unity to GNOME 3 this update, just as I had switched from Unity back to GNOME 2 just after last one. It has nothing to do with being "too cool" for Unity. I tried to get used to Unity, but "clunky" doesn't even adequately describe it. I guess I'll try XFCE again. I tried it a long time ago, and it was a little to minimal at the time. I hear it's grown up.
Allow me to add my critique: Astute and well put, elrous0. The issues are actually two fold assuming agreement on the nature and scope of GW. The firsts involves consequence; and, whether GW provides positive effects, net and/or varied by geography, negative effects, same condition boundaries, and who would be affected negatively, positively, and by how much. The second involves actionability, that is, where GW incurs negative effects, whether there are actions humans can implement to avoid or mitigate those effects, and the cost versus benefits of those actions, or even inactions. The off-putting factor to me is that vague theory, as well as solution sets, always seem to revolve around the politics of the camps involved.
Two finger tap functions like right click on Mac. No problem. Otherwise, agree Unity was just awful. I say was, because it's so easy to change to Gnome 3 and make default (Synaptic, find GNOME 3, click, apply, reboot). That said, GNOME 3 is an unnecessary departure from what was otherwise a perfectly good desktop. But, getting wing used to it. Far better than Unity. Life goes on.
I was one of those people who were kind of annoyed, both when GNOME 3 messed with the legacy GNOME interface, and super annoyed with Ubuntu for Unity, which is a travesty. That said, and to Ubuntu's credit, changing to GNOME 3 at least was as easy as a click from Synaptic. GNOME 3 is beginning to grow on me. Oh well. The only constant in this world is change. Isn't it wonderful to at least have a choice?
If the EU believe the benefits justify the lifecycle costs, then they should go for it, and good for them. Of course, if their choice of incompatible standards introduced into a mature market reduces demand to below profitability thresholds, then too bad, so sad. Good luck friends.
BINGO! Policies that carry significant political political weight, especially when they become fashionable routes to swift approval, are especially prone to misunderstanding, misapplication, and imbalance between indented and unintended consequences. COTS, when misused as a panacea to achieve affordability, tends to not only be less affordable in the long run, but often leads to less effective solutions. The problem is that panaceas rarely are. Policies mindlessly pursued lead to poor results decoupled from original kernel of intent. There are certainly valid places for COTS, and valid reasons for nots.
I believe that certain concepts, however archaic by virtue of the passage of time, are worthy of continued consideration, such as the idea that powers vested in a government derive from the consent of the governed. Yes, we have TV now, as well as airplanes, trains and automobiles.That doesn't keep me from appreciating the wisdom and continued value in the Constitution any more than the Constitution prevents me from appreciating the public good of having an FDA, FAA, or EPA. "Parroting the argument," condescending as that phrase is no doubt meant to be, that the passage of time abrogates the value of the Constitution is one with which I disagree. The constitution provides a framework of delegated powers, and imposes constraints, checks and balances if you will, on government, which is necessary because any institution administered by humans is subject to abuse.
I'd miss it too. The EPA performs a valuable regulatory role. Like any other bureaucracy, it may occasionally gets out of hand. What well meaning human institution is immune from occasional excess, sloth, or stupidity? It would be nice to have an ability to conduct a rational discussion on government restraint without the extreme assertion that any such discussion means that one is against government per se, and therefore a "right wing extremist" during a Democratic administration, or "left wing extremism" during Republican administration by partisans in the opposite camp. Were in a very bad place at this point in our history. I hope we can get over it.
Out of sympathy and respect for those with cognitive disabilities that inhibit interpretation of non-literal speech, I will explain the concept of metaphorical speech. A metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable: “I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression,” said Mark, who was fond of theatrical metaphors | her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor.
a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract: the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering" (New Oxford American Dictionary). Thus, when I employed the expression "tow the line" I meant "to conform to a rule or a standard." -- I hope this helps.
Or, of course, those who are accused of being in the "rightmost fringe of religious fanatics" by virtue of any suggestion of governmental restraint during a Democratic administration.
You expressed it a lot better than I did. What ever happend to the sentiment expressed in the 10th amendment, that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."? Note especially the word "delegated," which suggests that powers of government are vested by the people to the government to facilitate its ability to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." Sorry in advance to those who might take offense to what they will perceive as "right wing" rhetoric.
As the number of laws and regulations continue to grow exponentially, at some point we will all become violators of something. When we reach that critical mass it will become impossible to enforce everything without bringing society to a standstill. At that point, government authorities will be compelled to focus on deciding what to enforce and when, based primarily on perceived need to reign in those "loose cannons" who either make too much of a fuss, fail to tow the line, or beg to be made an example. If this seems just a tad paranoid, maybe it just because I'm feeling a little stabby today. No worries.
OK, I get your point, which has some obvious merit. In U.S. military justice, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) defines a concept of a "legal order or regulation," as opposed to an illegal one. Military members are required to obey all legal orders and regulations, that it is their duty to obey, under Article 92. However, if the order is illegal, one is likewise obligated to disobey, also under penalty of law of having carried out an illegal act. That said, disobeying an order or regulation is seriously non-trivial, and one had better be damned certain of ones conviction that the order was in fact illegal, vice, say, unpleasant, inconvenient, distasteful, etc., else one risks being seriously screwed.
Either way, neither political nor personal disagreement is a moral justification for crime. Today they may disagree and target someone you also don't like, the next day they or someone else might also disagree with you. I hope the justice system finds and holds these criminals to proper account.
Which is why I for one will ensure that I always have my towel handy. Seriously, however, while I can see a value in turning to the field of science fiction for new ideas, it would be much more cost efficient and effective to harvest those ideas from current professional science fiction practitioners than do-it-yourself. Just go to Amazon and buy their books, NASA, that's what DARPA does. Good gravy.
What I've learned from watching crime shows on cable: never buy duct tape, a tarp and a shovel at a home depot using your Visa card and wearing a bright Hawaiian shirt. Just saying.
Slashdot Mirror
...or Vermont Maple syrup, but honestly, I don't think the Maple Trees much care, disloyal bastards.
MASM
I can't help agreeing. I got to really liked GNOME 2. Bummer it had to be reinvented. I switched from Unity to GNOME 3 this update, just as I had switched from Unity back to GNOME 2 just after last one. It has nothing to do with being "too cool" for Unity. I tried to get used to Unity, but "clunky" doesn't even adequately describe it. I guess I'll try XFCE again. I tried it a long time ago, and it was a little to minimal at the time. I hear it's grown up.
Allow me to add my critique: Astute and well put, elrous0. The issues are actually two fold assuming agreement on the nature and scope of GW. The firsts involves consequence; and, whether GW provides positive effects, net and/or varied by geography, negative effects, same condition boundaries, and who would be affected negatively, positively, and by how much. The second involves actionability, that is, where GW incurs negative effects, whether there are actions humans can implement to avoid or mitigate those effects, and the cost versus benefits of those actions, or even inactions. The off-putting factor to me is that vague theory, as well as solution sets, always seem to revolve around the politics of the camps involved.
Two finger tap functions like right click on Mac. No problem. Otherwise, agree Unity was just awful. I say was, because it's so easy to change to Gnome 3 and make default (Synaptic, find GNOME 3, click, apply, reboot). That said, GNOME 3 is an unnecessary departure from what was otherwise a perfectly good desktop. But, getting wing used to it. Far better than Unity. Life goes on.
I was one of those people who were kind of annoyed, both when GNOME 3 messed with the legacy GNOME interface, and super annoyed with Ubuntu for Unity, which is a travesty. That said, and to Ubuntu's credit, changing to GNOME 3 at least was as easy as a click from Synaptic. GNOME 3 is beginning to grow on me. Oh well. The only constant in this world is change. Isn't it wonderful to at least have a choice?
If the EU believe the benefits justify the lifecycle costs, then they should go for it, and good for them. Of course, if their choice of incompatible standards introduced into a mature market reduces demand to below profitability thresholds, then too bad, so sad. Good luck friends.
BINGO! Policies that carry significant political political weight, especially when they become fashionable routes to swift approval, are especially prone to misunderstanding, misapplication, and imbalance between indented and unintended consequences. COTS, when misused as a panacea to achieve affordability, tends to not only be less affordable in the long run, but often leads to less effective solutions. The problem is that panaceas rarely are. Policies mindlessly pursued lead to poor results decoupled from original kernel of intent. There are certainly valid places for COTS, and valid reasons for nots.
Unless you're Duke, then you should always FEAR THE TURTLE!
I believe that certain concepts, however archaic by virtue of the passage of time, are worthy of continued consideration, such as the idea that powers vested in a government derive from the consent of the governed. Yes, we have TV now, as well as airplanes, trains and automobiles.That doesn't keep me from appreciating the wisdom and continued value in the Constitution any more than the Constitution prevents me from appreciating the public good of having an FDA, FAA, or EPA. "Parroting the argument," condescending as that phrase is no doubt meant to be, that the passage of time abrogates the value of the Constitution is one with which I disagree. The constitution provides a framework of delegated powers, and imposes constraints, checks and balances if you will, on government, which is necessary because any institution administered by humans is subject to abuse.
I'd miss it too. The EPA performs a valuable regulatory role. Like any other bureaucracy, it may occasionally gets out of hand. What well meaning human institution is immune from occasional excess, sloth, or stupidity? It would be nice to have an ability to conduct a rational discussion on government restraint without the extreme assertion that any such discussion means that one is against government per se, and therefore a "right wing extremist" during a Democratic administration, or "left wing extremism" during Republican administration by partisans in the opposite camp. Were in a very bad place at this point in our history. I hope we can get over it.
Um, you're right. And now Mr. Knowitall will illustrate the term "irony" and the metaphor "eats crow."
Out of sympathy and respect for those with cognitive disabilities that inhibit interpretation of non-literal speech, I will explain the concept of metaphorical speech. A metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable: “I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression,” said Mark, who was fond of theatrical metaphors | her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor. a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract: the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering" (New Oxford American Dictionary). Thus, when I employed the expression "tow the line" I meant "to conform to a rule or a standard." -- I hope this helps.
Or, of course, those who are accused of being in the "rightmost fringe of religious fanatics" by virtue of any suggestion of governmental restraint during a Democratic administration.
You expressed it a lot better than I did. What ever happend to the sentiment expressed in the 10th amendment, that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."? Note especially the word "delegated," which suggests that powers of government are vested by the people to the government to facilitate its ability to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." Sorry in advance to those who might take offense to what they will perceive as "right wing" rhetoric.
"The great tragedy in science -- a beautiful hypothesis, slain by an ugly fact!" (Huxley)...or put another way, same manure, different flies.
Yea, verily.
As the number of laws and regulations continue to grow exponentially, at some point we will all become violators of something. When we reach that critical mass it will become impossible to enforce everything without bringing society to a standstill. At that point, government authorities will be compelled to focus on deciding what to enforce and when, based primarily on perceived need to reign in those "loose cannons" who either make too much of a fuss, fail to tow the line, or beg to be made an example. If this seems just a tad paranoid, maybe it just because I'm feeling a little stabby today. No worries.
No, robots. They steal old people's medicine.
Axiom 1: The cost of security must never exceed the value of the asset. Just saying.
I looked all over the Object Management Group site and can find no reference to a UML stereotype called "Ponies!"
OK, I get your point, which has some obvious merit. In U.S. military justice, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) defines a concept of a "legal order or regulation," as opposed to an illegal one. Military members are required to obey all legal orders and regulations, that it is their duty to obey, under Article 92. However, if the order is illegal, one is likewise obligated to disobey, also under penalty of law of having carried out an illegal act. That said, disobeying an order or regulation is seriously non-trivial, and one had better be damned certain of ones conviction that the order was in fact illegal, vice, say, unpleasant, inconvenient, distasteful, etc., else one risks being seriously screwed.
Either way, neither political nor personal disagreement is a moral justification for crime. Today they may disagree and target someone you also don't like, the next day they or someone else might also disagree with you. I hope the justice system finds and holds these criminals to proper account.
Which is why I for one will ensure that I always have my towel handy. Seriously, however, while I can see a value in turning to the field of science fiction for new ideas, it would be much more cost efficient and effective to harvest those ideas from current professional science fiction practitioners than do-it-yourself. Just go to Amazon and buy their books, NASA, that's what DARPA does. Good gravy.
What I've learned from watching crime shows on cable: never buy duct tape, a tarp and a shovel at a home depot using your Visa card and wearing a bright Hawaiian shirt. Just saying.