VirtuaWin for multiple desktops, Find and Run robot for quickly opening programs, Winsplit Revolution for moving application windows to predefined areas, WizMouse for scrolling windows not in focus
You seem to have managed to get many features of Linux based systems on Windows. Thanks, I am bookmarking this for when I get stuck with Windows again.
Do you have any tips for the ctrl-alt-F2 trick of Linux systems - for logging in as another user on a totally different virtual terminal? I use this a lot in Linux, and inability to do so in windows seems to cripple my occasional use of it. Thanks.
No license required to use, but required for distribution. The licenses you mention are required for distribution. Since the context made it clear distribution is out of question, your pedantry is misguided.
It was a perfectly standard chipset for that time, providing the memory interface
Nothing to be proud of. AMD had included memory controller in the CPU far before Intel got around to doing that. With excellent results.
Everything a non-Atom Intel CPU of a comparable time period did the Atom did.
An Atom Intel CPU should not do what a non-Atom Intel CPU does, if the Atom Intel CPU is to meet its end-user-centric goals of low power consumption of the whole system.
The original Atom problems were due to crappy chipsets, not crappy CPUs
The CPUs required the crappy chipsets. E.g. the cart part of a bullock cart has infinite mileage per megaJoule of energy consumed, supports speeds of upto 300 miles/hour so bullock cart is obviously superior to cars. It doesn't even make sense to say the crappiness of bullock carts is due to the inferior bovines in front of them rather than the cart itself. Because the cart is not the full deal without a propeller. Similarly, CPU is not the full deal without a memory controller and other supporting infrastructure.
Though I agree that today Intel has largely caught up in performance / Watt ratio in many scenarios. More so if you include Haswell.
My theory of shill spotting is simple. If a poster always has good things to say about a company, be it about CEO sexual preference, stock buy-worthiness, product quality, customer service, ethics, and every other imaginable subject; it is too much of a coincidence. If there are hundreds of posts, with most devoted to the company in question, statistical confidence increases.
I don't distinguish between fanboy and shill, and nor do I want to because both kinds of opinion are equally worthless.
Though the sibling post's AC does make a valid point about hit and run.
So? Traveller is still a person/thing that travels. Computer is still a person/thing that computes. Uncharted notwithstanding.
Take the Chinese room objection to the theory. The person / room / books combination conducts the conversation. Qualitatively one may not be comfortable with the idea of a system conducting a conversation, but one either needs to define "conversation" to exclude non-persons from conducting it; or accept that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck.
100mm x 100mm x 100mm should be able to accommodate a 120mm fan (140 might just not make it). One whole side covered with a single fan makes for a nice silent cooling effect without going into the details of design of the internals. Include dust filters for all holes, and you are set.
Here, the criticism is more illogical than the theory itself. "Mind" IS a computer, because it computes. I am a traveller because I travel. What is the big deal there?
Some people do not like the qualitative connotations it creates, but they are simply illogical.
It will not run many, vast majority depends on libc and the like.
Your argument was about it running the software, nowhere was a dependency requirement mentioned.
1. If dependencies are allowed, Android kernel can surely run all the software, by a simple wrapper around it to translate. As libc is a dependency for Fedora, the wrapper is a dependency for Android kernel.
The debian distribution with BSD kernel can run more of those software from source than the vanilla Linux kernel can. So debian/BSD is "more" Linux than Linux itself?
2. What makes Fedora and Denial Linux? On similar lines to yours, one could make the argument that since fedora and debian cannot run android software, fedora and debian are not Linux. That would be as wrong as your argument to the converse.
Your own argument is circular too, but you yourself don't understand your argument so you don't realize it.
You have assumed Fedora and Debian are Linux, and anything that runs their software is Linux. But you fail to understand what originally made Fedora and Debian Linux. It is the inclusion of a kernel derived from Linux kernel. That same thing makes Android also Linux, without any need to be compatible with Fedora and Debian. Fedora and Debian are not gold standards of Linux, it is, as the name suggests, Linux kernel.
On lines similar to yours, one could assume only Debian is Linux and refuse to believe Fedora is Linux because it doesn't directly run Debs.
What can run where doesn't tell you what is Linux and what is not. Something is Linux if it is, you know, Linux. May be locked down to run nothing at all, it still remains Linux.
Except in your imagination where there is a Linux userland, and water is dry.
Your repeating it in another thread will not make it true. As discussed in this one, Android is very much Linux. There is no "linux userland" in the real world, it might exist in your oxymoron-filled world along with dry liquid water.
What competes with 802.11 ? Still we have seen a, b, g, n over past few decades. Lots of devices support them, sometimes even before the standard is finalized.
It is a "standard". People using Microsoft software don't know what that means, but it does mean something.
Ok so you call it a misconception and confirm that it is true, not a misconception at all. And you also confirm that aiming to do well in touch devices has hurt usability in regular devices.
One problem with limiting the jury to people sharing the profession of the accused is that the jury might be overly sympathetic to the accused. Imagine a group of doctors hearing evidence of possible malpractice. They might weigh the evidence fairly, but they might also feel sympathy for the accused, remembering times when they were in similar situations, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
If 12 doctors are sympathetic to a doctor accused of malpractice because of knowing the issue, being sympathetic is the correct stance. Looks like the procedure is complex in a way that it is easy to make a mistake that seems to be akin to malpractice to the layman.
Could his knowledge of the techniques and pitfalls cause him to do exactly what the foreman in the Samsung jury did? He could become the jury's own "expert witness"
He can't. Because the others are also doctors. In this case the problem was that the others had no clue so anyone with a semblance of a clue seemed like the one to follow. Humans and sheep are not that different.
In many ways, it seems better to pick up random folks off the street
While I agree with your other statement, I would like to point out about the consequences for Hogan (a non-legal remark if I may). It could have been an honest mistake. There should be an enquiry, but I wouldn't recommend being harsh on him. Acting oversmart is normal human behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
VirtuaWin for multiple desktops, Find and Run robot for quickly opening programs, Winsplit Revolution for moving application windows to predefined areas, WizMouse for scrolling windows not in focus
You seem to have managed to get many features of Linux based systems on Windows. Thanks, I am bookmarking this for when I get stuck with Windows again.
Do you have any tips for the ctrl-alt-F2 trick of Linux systems - for logging in as another user on a totally different virtual terminal? I use this a lot in Linux, and inability to do so in windows seems to cripple my occasional use of it. Thanks.
No license required to use, but required for distribution. The licenses you mention are required for distribution. Since the context made it clear distribution is out of question, your pedantry is misguided.
Said like a thorough accountant :knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
Report: Every Potential 2040 President Already Unelectable Due To Facebook
Haha, and I'll become President by default simply by not having a Facebook account.
No ???, pure profit.
It was a perfectly standard chipset for that time, providing the memory interface
Nothing to be proud of. AMD had included memory controller in the CPU far before Intel got around to doing that. With excellent results.
Everything a non-Atom Intel CPU of a comparable time period did the Atom did.
An Atom Intel CPU should not do what a non-Atom Intel CPU does, if the Atom Intel CPU is to meet its end-user-centric goals of low power consumption of the whole system.
The original Atom problems were due to crappy chipsets, not crappy CPUs
The CPUs required the crappy chipsets. E.g. the cart part of a bullock cart has infinite mileage per megaJoule of energy consumed, supports speeds of upto 300 miles/hour so bullock cart is obviously superior to cars. It doesn't even make sense to say the crappiness of bullock carts is due to the inferior bovines in front of them rather than the cart itself. Because the cart is not the full deal without a propeller. Similarly, CPU is not the full deal without a memory controller and other supporting infrastructure.
Though I agree that today Intel has largely caught up in performance / Watt ratio in many scenarios. More so if you include Haswell.
One needs to "learn" metro? So not ready for prime time yet.
Do let me know if you have something relevant to add on this subject.
No, your reading comprehension is poor. Duck is not described as traveller. And even if it were, walking and swimming are also forms of traveling.
My theory of shill spotting is simple. If a poster always has good things to say about a company, be it about CEO sexual preference, stock buy-worthiness, product quality, customer service, ethics, and every other imaginable subject; it is too much of a coincidence. If there are hundreds of posts, with most devoted to the company in question, statistical confidence increases.
I don't distinguish between fanboy and shill, and nor do I want to because both kinds of opinion are equally worthless.
Though the sibling post's AC does make a valid point about hit and run.
So it is outside the scope of discussion when discussion involves quacking ducks.
Cooked quacking duck?
So? Traveller is still a person/thing that travels. Computer is still a person/thing that computes. Uncharted notwithstanding.
Take the Chinese room objection to the theory. The person / room / books combination conducts the conversation. Qualitatively one may not be comfortable with the idea of a system conducting a conversation, but one either needs to define "conversation" to exclude non-persons from conducting it; or accept that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck.
and a standard 80mm fan
100mm x 100mm x 100mm should be able to accommodate a 120mm fan (140 might just not make it). One whole side covered with a single fan makes for a nice silent cooling effect without going into the details of design of the internals. Include dust filters for all holes, and you are set.
Here, the criticism is more illogical than the theory itself. "Mind" IS a computer, because it computes. I am a traveller because I travel. What is the big deal there?
Some people do not like the qualitative connotations it creates, but they are simply illogical.
Oh. So where does your imaginary "Linux userland" fit into this worldview? Hope dry water also finds a place.
It will not run many, vast majority depends on libc and the like.
Your argument was about it running the software, nowhere was a dependency requirement mentioned.
1. If dependencies are allowed, Android kernel can surely run all the software, by a simple wrapper around it to translate. As libc is a dependency for Fedora, the wrapper is a dependency for Android kernel.
The debian distribution with BSD kernel can run more of those software from source than the vanilla Linux kernel can. So debian/BSD is "more" Linux than Linux itself?
2. What makes Fedora and Denial Linux? On similar lines to yours, one could make the argument that since fedora and debian cannot run android software, fedora and debian are not Linux. That would be as wrong as your argument to the converse.
Your own argument is circular too, but you yourself don't understand your argument so you don't realize it.
You have assumed Fedora and Debian are Linux, and anything that runs their software is Linux. But you fail to understand what originally made Fedora and Debian Linux. It is the inclusion of a kernel derived from Linux kernel. That same thing makes Android also Linux, without any need to be compatible with Fedora and Debian. Fedora and Debian are not gold standards of Linux, it is, as the name suggests, Linux kernel.
On lines similar to yours, one could assume only Debian is Linux and refuse to believe Fedora is Linux because it doesn't directly run Debs.
A direct download and compile from kernel.org will also not be able to run a vast majority of these software that you point to.
What can run where doesn't tell you what is Linux and what is not. Something is Linux if it is, you know, Linux. May be locked down to run nothing at all, it still remains Linux.
Except in your imagination where there is a Linux userland, and water is dry.
Android is not Linux
Your repeating it in another thread will not make it true. As discussed in this one, Android is very much Linux. There is no "linux userland" in the real world, it might exist in your oxymoron-filled world along with dry liquid water.
Replied to the wrong post
Replied to a different post earlier by mistake :
What competes with 802.11 ? Still we have seen a, b, g, n over past few decades. Lots of devices support them, sometimes even before the standard is finalized.
It is a "standard". People using Microsoft software don't know what that means, but it does mean something.
Ok so you call it a misconception and confirm that it is true, not a misconception at all. And you also confirm that aiming to do well in touch devices has hurt usability in regular devices.
One problem with limiting the jury to people sharing the profession of the accused is that the jury might be overly sympathetic to the accused. Imagine a group of doctors hearing evidence of possible malpractice. They might weigh the evidence fairly, but they might also feel sympathy for the accused, remembering times when they were in similar situations, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
If 12 doctors are sympathetic to a doctor accused of malpractice because of knowing the issue, being sympathetic is the correct stance. Looks like the procedure is complex in a way that it is easy to make a mistake that seems to be akin to malpractice to the layman.
Could his knowledge of the techniques and pitfalls cause him to do exactly what the foreman in the Samsung jury did? He could become the jury's own "expert witness"
He can't. Because the others are also doctors. In this case the problem was that the others had no clue so anyone with a semblance of a clue seemed like the one to follow. Humans and sheep are not that different.
In many ways, it seems better to pick up random folks off the street
Who can't understand the topic being discussed?
While I agree with your other statement, I would like to point out about the consequences for Hogan (a non-legal remark if I may). It could have been an honest mistake. There should be an enquiry, but I wouldn't recommend being harsh on him. Acting oversmart is normal human behaviour.
Not sure how "the law" sees it, though.