I'm not complaining about math being a requirement.
[...]I was complaining about schools here in Sweden (at least in the past as it's been a few years, I wrote this in the original post but might as well repeat it since you obviously didn't read it) requiring the exact same things for every engineering and hard science program which leads to situations where high schools "compensate" for this by making it as easy as possible for students to pass their HS level chemistry, physics, math, psychology, social studies, etc. courses because lots of schools apparently think you can't study CS unless you've also got a working knowledge of organic chemistry, physics, social studies and psychology...
My point was that students arrive at universities with grades that indicate that they know lots about several subjects yet in practice they don't know these things, they just ran through it on "easymode" in HS and think that because they got a passing grade in chemistry in HS they have what it takes to get a degree in chemistry, or math and CS, and so on.
My second point was the other side of this coin, students who have the required math background who aren't eligible to study CS on a university level because the school decided to have a blanket requirement for all engineering and hard science programs (which means that they all require the minimum required for all the others, that is to say that if you want to study CS you need to have grades in chemistry and physics which are good enough to qualify for the chemical engineering and physics programs). And because of this situation a lot of high schools are causing the situation in my first point, they pushing students through with no real knowledge of the subjects because the schools know that a kid who wants to study CS won't need to know chemistry or physics, but he/she will need the grades to be accepted to the CS program at the university. The problem is that they do this with all subjects and you get a lot of students who aren't really qualified and others who are qualified but who didn't take the right package of courses in HS so on paper they are too stupid for CS because they didn't study chemistry or psychology in HS.
I wasn't complaining about math being required for CS, I was complaining about schools here in Sweden (at least in the past as it's been a few years, I wrote this in the original post but might as well repeat it since you obviously didn't read it) requiring the exact same things for every engineering and hard science program which leads to situations where high schools "compensate" for this by making it as easy as possible for students to pass their HS level chemistry, physics, math, psychology, social studies, etc. courses because lots of schools apparently think you can't study CS unless you've also got a working knowledge of organic chemistry, physics, social studies and psychology...
Here in Sweden a lot of the engineering and "hard science" programs used to require pretty much the same across the board (don't know what it's like now, been a few years) which was equally bad. Rather than not requiring enough things they all required you to have taken the advanced HS math courses, advanced HS physics and of course HS chemistry, many also required other courses which were highly irrelevant for the program at hand but taught in a specific HS-level program geared at preparing students for college.
This meant instead that there were plenty of students with the required math skills who couldn't apply to CS programs because they didn't take the right chemistry or physics course in HS. Or people who couldn't study chemistry because they didn't take "Social studies B" and so on...
Of course, a lot of the people who took the specific college preparatory HS program didn't really know any of the stuff they were supposed to know because the high schools structured all courses to pass as many students as possible while still technically meeting the national requirements (it was kind of silly when you had classmates who barely knew what a function was who managed to pass "Math E" which was, as the name implies, the 5th math course available in HS, the first four being A, B, C and D with only A being required to get your high school diploma).
Press '+' to add an alarm? If we're talking on a bonafide computer or smartphone, sure. If it's on a typical clock radio I'd assume '+' means "wake me up in the middle of the night for no reason". Seriously, the main problem with user interfaces isn't consistency, it's device manufacturers who have no idea what a good user interface is...
Maybe I should've put "the *BSDs" instead of FreeBSD but these days I rarely see any mention of the other BSDs, it's all about FreeBSD and FreeBSD derivatives...
The only major ones left are Solaris (costs money, except for OpenSolaris which is now zombified), HP/UX (won't run too well on your x86), and AIX (ditto)
You left out Mac OS X (certified UNIX 03) and FreeBSD (not certified but a direct descendant of a "real UNIX" unlike Linux).
The ISPs that do this are trying to essentially control the rate of technological progress. They want to be the ones throttling it to maximize their own profits, only raising their caps when it is the most profitable for them to do so. They set the caps a lot lower than "necessary". It has also been established that a lot of these companies have been lowering the amount of money spent on network upgrades in the last decade and they're still screaming about not being able to supply the bandwidth being used by their customers...
Try again to guess which side of this conflict is bad.
It's not unlimited in the sense that you can transfer an unlimited amount of data. There is generally either a set maximum data rate or the communication protocols at hand have a maximum data rate.
According to the CDC blog you and all of your family members should gather outside your home. Yup, that's how they want you to stay safe when the zombies come for our sweet juicy brains, stand around outdoors waiting for your family to show up.
I think we can assume that the CDC is not the best source of zombie survival information.
And I got it. Twice the speed, twice the ram, half the size, and only 168 fewer pixels vertically.
This just indicates that your hardware replacement rate is a lot lower than that of most others.
There's a reason the current Macbook Air and the iPad are both doing well, they cover two slightly different use cases that people tried to cover with netbooks. The Air covering the "A laptop that's actually mobile, looks nice, has enough power to run all my regular apps" and the iPad the simple mobile entertainment niche (watching a movie in the bathroom/on the train, browsing the web from the couch, etc.).
(Yes, there are other similar products, I just grabbed the two most well-known ones)
Basically, what people wanted was something simple (tablet like the iPad) and ultraportable laptops (that don't cost $2,000+ like ultraportables with anything resembling decent performance used to cost not too long ago),
Wouldn't it make more sense to first release something that has the desired basic functionality and then later add things which you can't immediately get working in all major browsers?
I love the late-'90s-style rant about browsers at the beginning. Especially since it starts off by stating you should use Chrome (WebKit-based) or Firefox, that Opera is also fine, then goes on to say that other users of KHTML- och WebKit-based browsers should make sure they have a recent browser and finishes off by telling IE and Safari (WebKit-based in the sense that Apple created WebKit by forking it from KHTML) users should get "a real browser".
Also, hasn't Safari generally been more standards-compliant than Firefox the last few years? Is the author of that page trying to say that he/she sucks at (X)HTML and CSS?
So is (Recovery Boot) availability with most Linux distros, no?
Well, with most somewhat modern distros I've used (that's called a disclaimer) grub either automatically boots the default choice or you only get a choice if you've updated your kernel (and even then you tend to get to choose if you want a fallback boot options or not).
So much that it needs to be constantly advertised as an equal OS.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this? Seeing as how you're an AC this is a bit too ambiguous for me to answer. What is equal to what? (Linux to Windows? Fallback boot option to default one? I'm sure you can invent another one since I pointed these two out)
I actually find that it's the other way around, hovering over the icon feels like it gets "cluttered" when I have lots of running program (besides, this feature is hardly new, it's been around in ages in various window managers, I've never been a fan of it).
Exposé on the other gives me a nice overview of all windows on the current workspace (and if you zoom out to view all workspaces you can sell all windows on all workspaces with a grand total of to key presses). I'm still a bit upset about apple "grid-ifying" Exposé though, earlier versions had relative sizes and positions for all windows which made sense but tended to get a bit messy if you had a lot of windows (emphasis as we're not just talking a dozen or so, we're talking "I like having fifty windows on a single workspace and spend my days organizing windows instead of working"...)
Put another way, ext4 is a replacement for ext3, whereas btrfs is a replacement for zfs.
I think you mean that btrfs is a replacement for ext4. Maybe I'm naive and a bit reactionary but I'm just not seeing FreeBSD and Solaris switching to btrfs just because the Linux crowd says it's the greatest thing since sliced bread...
I actually disagree with this. I use Windows at work and OS X at home and even though I've been using MS Windows off and on since the mid-'90s I can't help but feel that switching between tasks/documents/programs under Windows is clunky and confusing. Basically, it takes time and effort to get the right window.
With OS X I feel like there's a better "flow" when it comes to quickly finding the right window/document, I can't quite pinpoint it, it just takes less dedicated effort which means I can keep my focus on the task at hand rather than switch into "what the? hey, where'd it? oh for fuck's.. damnit! Ah, there.. No, that's the other one..." mode all the time.
As for virtual desktops, they are very useful although I don't understand those who think they fix any and all clutter issues (a dozen virtual desktops don't make a 17" CRT running at 1280x960 much more useful). More specifically about "Spaces" for OS X, if you want to drag something from one app to another try dragging, hitting your "Spaces key", moving your mouse pointer to the right desktop, hitting the "Spaces key" again and dropping on the right app. Also works with Exposé...
Yes, a 27" monitor at 2560x1440 has a pixel density of 109 PPI and at normal viewing distances you just don't see individual pixels. Well, you can see the pixels but it's not like they stand out like a sore thumb as they do when you start to look at pixel densities closer to 80-90 PPI. 150 PPI would be extremely nice, no risk of small text being limited by the pixel grid anymore...
I'd rather have the 27" or 30" version to replace my current main 27" IPS monitor running at 2560x1440. Or maybe replace my secondary 22" monitor and make the old 27" the "crappy" older monitor. The PPI difference might make it a bit weird though.
This. They're fucking worthless. The entire IT staff responsible (and possibly both the CIO and CFO for not providing proper funding) for maintaining security should be FIRED as of yesterday! Look, it's real simple to keep a malware free network.
You're assuming that the people "responsible" actually have the authority to do things right rather than being held responsible while at the same time being dismissed as "whiners" and "paranoid" when they try to deal with threats before they strike.
And yes, that's pretty damn common. IT/IS staff knows what the right thing to do is, they suggest the right thing or maybe even begin to do the right thing, manglement finds out, chews out IT/IS and everything goes back to the normal low-cost, don't-spend-money-until-it's-too-late status quo.
The reason for this? Management knows that technically they aren't responsible for anything bad that may come from this (or they're completely ignorant of the dangers but I've seen the first one a lot in larger environments), the guys who desperately want to secure the network are, even though it's management that's keeping the network insecure...
Slashdot Mirror
PLEASE. Read my posts before replying to them.
I'm not complaining about math being a requirement.
[...]I was complaining about schools here in Sweden (at least in the past as it's been a few years, I wrote this in the original post but might as well repeat it since you obviously didn't read it) requiring the exact same things for every engineering and hard science program which leads to situations where high schools "compensate" for this by making it as easy as possible for students to pass their HS level chemistry, physics, math, psychology, social studies, etc. courses because lots of schools apparently think you can't study CS unless you've also got a working knowledge of organic chemistry, physics, social studies and psychology...
My point was that students arrive at universities with grades that indicate that they know lots about several subjects yet in practice they don't know these things, they just ran through it on "easymode" in HS and think that because they got a passing grade in chemistry in HS they have what it takes to get a degree in chemistry, or math and CS, and so on.
My second point was the other side of this coin, students who have the required math background who aren't eligible to study CS on a university level because the school decided to have a blanket requirement for all engineering and hard science programs (which means that they all require the minimum required for all the others, that is to say that if you want to study CS you need to have grades in chemistry and physics which are good enough to qualify for the chemical engineering and physics programs). And because of this situation a lot of high schools are causing the situation in my first point, they pushing students through with no real knowledge of the subjects because the schools know that a kid who wants to study CS won't need to know chemistry or physics, but he/she will need the grades to be accepted to the CS program at the university. The problem is that they do this with all subjects and you get a lot of students who aren't really qualified and others who are qualified but who didn't take the right package of courses in HS so on paper they are too stupid for CS because they didn't study chemistry or psychology in HS.
Uh, did you actually read my post?
I wasn't complaining about math being required for CS, I was complaining about schools here in Sweden (at least in the past as it's been a few years, I wrote this in the original post but might as well repeat it since you obviously didn't read it) requiring the exact same things for every engineering and hard science program which leads to situations where high schools "compensate" for this by making it as easy as possible for students to pass their HS level chemistry, physics, math, psychology, social studies, etc. courses because lots of schools apparently think you can't study CS unless you've also got a working knowledge of organic chemistry, physics, social studies and psychology...
Here in Sweden a lot of the engineering and "hard science" programs used to require pretty much the same across the board (don't know what it's like now, been a few years) which was equally bad. Rather than not requiring enough things they all required you to have taken the advanced HS math courses, advanced HS physics and of course HS chemistry, many also required other courses which were highly irrelevant for the program at hand but taught in a specific HS-level program geared at preparing students for college.
This meant instead that there were plenty of students with the required math skills who couldn't apply to CS programs because they didn't take the right chemistry or physics course in HS. Or people who couldn't study chemistry because they didn't take "Social studies B" and so on...
Of course, a lot of the people who took the specific college preparatory HS program didn't really know any of the stuff they were supposed to know because the high schools structured all courses to pass as many students as possible while still technically meeting the national requirements (it was kind of silly when you had classmates who barely knew what a function was who managed to pass "Math E" which was, as the name implies, the 5th math course available in HS, the first four being A, B, C and D with only A being required to get your high school diploma).
Press '+' to add an alarm? If we're talking on a bonafide computer or smartphone, sure. If it's on a typical clock radio I'd assume '+' means "wake me up in the middle of the night for no reason". Seriously, the main problem with user interfaces isn't consistency, it's device manufacturers who have no idea what a good user interface is...
Maybe I should've put "the *BSDs" instead of FreeBSD but these days I rarely see any mention of the other BSDs, it's all about FreeBSD and FreeBSD derivatives...
The only major ones left are Solaris (costs money, except for OpenSolaris which is now zombified), HP/UX (won't run too well on your x86), and AIX (ditto)
You left out Mac OS X (certified UNIX 03) and FreeBSD (not certified but a direct descendant of a "real UNIX" unlike Linux).
Americans assume that DSL tops out around 2/0.25 Mbps because that's pretty much what they can get.
The ISPs that do this are trying to essentially control the rate of technological progress. They want to be the ones throttling it to maximize their own profits, only raising their caps when it is the most profitable for them to do so. They set the caps a lot lower than "necessary". It has also been established that a lot of these companies have been lowering the amount of money spent on network upgrades in the last decade and they're still screaming about not being able to supply the bandwidth being used by their customers...
Try again to guess which side of this conflict is bad.
It's not unlimited in the sense that you can transfer an unlimited amount of data. There is generally either a set maximum data rate or the communication protocols at hand have a maximum data rate.
According to the CDC blog you and all of your family members should gather outside your home. Yup, that's how they want you to stay safe when the zombies come for our sweet juicy brains, stand around outdoors waiting for your family to show up.
I think we can assume that the CDC is not the best source of zombie survival information.
So what you're saying is that we need to decapitate him? or at least destroy his brain?
And I got it. Twice the speed, twice the ram, half the size, and only 168 fewer pixels vertically.
This just indicates that your hardware replacement rate is a lot lower than that of most others.
There's a reason the current Macbook Air and the iPad are both doing well, they cover two slightly different use cases that people tried to cover with netbooks. The Air covering the "A laptop that's actually mobile, looks nice, has enough power to run all my regular apps" and the iPad the simple mobile entertainment niche (watching a movie in the bathroom/on the train, browsing the web from the couch, etc.).
(Yes, there are other similar products, I just grabbed the two most well-known ones)
Basically, what people wanted was something simple (tablet like the iPad) and ultraportable laptops (that don't cost $2,000+ like ultraportables with anything resembling decent performance used to cost not too long ago),
Wouldn't it make more sense to first release something that has the desired basic functionality and then later add things which you can't immediately get working in all major browsers?
I love the late-'90s-style rant about browsers at the beginning. Especially since it starts off by stating you should use Chrome (WebKit-based) or Firefox, that Opera is also fine, then goes on to say that other users of KHTML- och WebKit-based browsers should make sure they have a recent browser and finishes off by telling IE and Safari (WebKit-based in the sense that Apple created WebKit by forking it from KHTML) users should get "a real browser".
Also, hasn't Safari generally been more standards-compliant than Firefox the last few years? Is the author of that page trying to say that he/she sucks at (X)HTML and CSS?
So is (Recovery Boot) availability with most Linux distros, no?
Well, with most somewhat modern distros I've used (that's called a disclaimer) grub either automatically boots the default choice or you only get a choice if you've updated your kernel (and even then you tend to get to choose if you want a fallback boot options or not).
So much that it needs to be constantly advertised as an equal OS.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this? Seeing as how you're an AC this is a bit too ambiguous for me to answer. What is equal to what? (Linux to Windows? Fallback boot option to default one? I'm sure you can invent another one since I pointed these two out)
I actually find that it's the other way around, hovering over the icon feels like it gets "cluttered" when I have lots of running program (besides, this feature is hardly new, it's been around in ages in various window managers, I've never been a fan of it).
Exposé on the other gives me a nice overview of all windows on the current workspace (and if you zoom out to view all workspaces you can sell all windows on all workspaces with a grand total of to key presses). I'm still a bit upset about apple "grid-ifying" Exposé though, earlier versions had relative sizes and positions for all windows which made sense but tended to get a bit messy if you had a lot of windows (emphasis as we're not just talking a dozen or so, we're talking "I like having fifty windows on a single workspace and spend my days organizing windows instead of working"...)
Put another way, ext4 is a replacement for ext3, whereas btrfs is a replacement for zfs.
I think you mean that btrfs is a replacement for ext4. Maybe I'm naive and a bit reactionary but I'm just not seeing FreeBSD and Solaris switching to btrfs just because the Linux crowd says it's the greatest thing since sliced bread...
15 years ago was 1996. Email was email. Printing out code? Are you sure you don't mean 25 or 35 years ago?
Uhm, if you have 40 full-time devs chances are you are paying them more than $2,000,000 per year. Compared to this $6,000 is once again jack squat.
I actually disagree with this. I use Windows at work and OS X at home and even though I've been using MS Windows off and on since the mid-'90s I can't help but feel that switching between tasks/documents/programs under Windows is clunky and confusing. Basically, it takes time and effort to get the right window.
With OS X I feel like there's a better "flow" when it comes to quickly finding the right window/document, I can't quite pinpoint it, it just takes less dedicated effort which means I can keep my focus on the task at hand rather than switch into "what the? hey, where'd it? oh for fuck's.. damnit! Ah, there.. No, that's the other one..." mode all the time.
As for virtual desktops, they are very useful although I don't understand those who think they fix any and all clutter issues (a dozen virtual desktops don't make a 17" CRT running at 1280x960 much more useful). More specifically about "Spaces" for OS X, if you want to drag something from one app to another try dragging, hitting your "Spaces key", moving your mouse pointer to the right desktop, hitting the "Spaces key" again and dropping on the right app. Also works with Exposé...
Except I wasn't talking about print, I was talking about monitors which generally require lower pixel densities to look good.
Yes, a 27" monitor at 2560x1440 has a pixel density of 109 PPI and at normal viewing distances you just don't see individual pixels. Well, you can see the pixels but it's not like they stand out like a sore thumb as they do when you start to look at pixel densities closer to 80-90 PPI. 150 PPI would be extremely nice, no risk of small text being limited by the pixel grid anymore...
I'd rather have the 27" or 30" version to replace my current main 27" IPS monitor running at 2560x1440. Or maybe replace my secondary 22" monitor and make the old 27" the "crappy" older monitor. The PPI difference might make it a bit weird though.
This. They're fucking worthless. The entire IT staff responsible (and possibly both the CIO and CFO for not providing proper funding) for maintaining security should be FIRED as of yesterday! Look, it's real simple to keep a malware free network.
You're assuming that the people "responsible" actually have the authority to do things right rather than being held responsible while at the same time being dismissed as "whiners" and "paranoid" when they try to deal with threats before they strike.
And yes, that's pretty damn common. IT/IS staff knows what the right thing to do is, they suggest the right thing or maybe even begin to do the right thing, manglement finds out, chews out IT/IS and everything goes back to the normal low-cost, don't-spend-money-until-it's-too-late status quo.
The reason for this? Management knows that technically they aren't responsible for anything bad that may come from this (or they're completely ignorant of the dangers but I've seen the first one a lot in larger environments), the guys who desperately want to secure the network are, even though it's management that's keeping the network insecure...
So... like water then?