Please. I just bought Asus Aspire One 722, with "Linpus Linux".
The WIFI does not work reliably and the workarounds although improve situation do not solve. For example I have to enable PXE boot or the system hangs. My audio volume cannot changed from keyboard. My video is not fast enough to decode 1080 video - same machine with Windows easily. Whether I use prorietary drivers or FOSS does not matter.
The audio-video sync is likely "linux standard", that is less than two seconds off. Compiz does not work in Xubuntu, at least not out-of-the box but then I do not care enough to search for solution.
Other than that, the machine is nice. It is slow compared to my quite old desktop, the boot time is unbelievably slow, etc. but other than that it is fast enough for my purposes. Much better than Atom...
Some of the problems is due to fact that there are several different HW revisions with different components. There is no way I can "buy HW which works with Linux" as both HW and Linux change on daily basis and both quite often to worse. Linux just is not for the desktop. I wonder how Canonical is going to do it.
Why? The whole idea of Micro 3/4 or Sony Nex (or like) is to avoid the worst part of DSLR - the mirror. Besides, Micro 3/4 lenses are smaller than DLSR lenses.
Well, Linux then clearly does not pass "nerd" test either. Or perhaps I am not nerd enough. Anyway I do not even know most of the "tweaking" parameters, and I could not care less. I just want it to work.
You are very much lying now. In Fukushima there were fatalities - and will be in the future (e.g. people have eaten radioactive cow). The amount of leaked caesium has been underestimated. By how much, nobody knows, real value is very much unknown.
According to "theory" there should have been far less than one core damage during last 60 years - in Fukushima alone there was four. From this we can deduce that CDF is underestimated by at least two orders of magnitude, and I'd be willing to bet it is intentional. In Germany there are no or very few fatalities from wind and solar combined - most of the solar is not rooftop (and the safety record of rooftop solar is much better than the claim - 60's does not count).
In none solar or wind powered areas (material scavenging, power generation, wahtnot) there are no 10'000 year "prohibited areas", in nuclear we have quite a few. But maybe this is "not much damage"...
Fukushima did not, apparently, "blow". I consider it did - I do not really care whether we get a "mushroom" (Chernobyl) or whether the uranium gets loose by earth quake/tsunami (or in post processing facility or...).
Sure, modern nuclear reactors are safer than old ones, but so is everything else and therefore his statistics (from 60's) are a blatant lie.
Even the latest and greatest nuclear reactors (which exist only in paper...) have, IMO, far too big CDF (core damage frequency). I do not give a flying fuck about theoretical CDF, I care what happens in real life. History has shown the theoretical CDF to be hugely underestimated and I see no reason to believe the future ones to be several orders of magnitude safer than current state-of-the-art ones like Olkiluoto 3.
"There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was."
The problem is, that the study you give is totally bogus, not alone because of that one lie. Sure all reactors are safer than the one just blew - until they blow. Just check the "core damage frequency" - even the "official" number is a tad big (if all energy in earth is done by nuclear, one reactor will blow every 100 years - history has shown the number to be few orders of magnitude bigger).
I have not heard of a single solar installation fatality - neither has the guy who did the "study". That is why he compared any "rooftop worker" to be equal to solar installation - WTF? Then the time scales are very different. Why not calculate nuclear research done during 40-50's for nuclear energy death toll? Because it would make it look horrible.
There is no need to have a group where self-control is broken. A study where some "wild" children are taught self control compared to some who are not would be sufficient. Hard to do, though.
Oh, btw, there are no guarantees in life. The life is a gamble no matter what you do.
Correct answer would, in many cases, be "although this weather pattern is against current predictions of CC, we still do believe CC is true (due to...)".
Not, as they now do, "this is exactly as we predicted CC could cause", as they have several contradicting predictions from which they cherry-pick the good one for this time.
I agree the press is as much, or probably more, responsible for this bullshit.
“It cannot be said that individual extreme weather events are directly caused by climate change. However, various extreme events will increase in both intensity and number,” Dr. Pachauri said, referring, for instance, to the floods in Australia.
When you don't know the difference between weather and climate, how do you know what you're talking about?
Extremely well said.
But then, why do every(?) climatologist claim "extreme phenomena will occur due to CC"? Why do they claim this exactly after some disaster? Why the claim "winters should get warmer (in Scandinavia)" is not pushed anymore? Because this and previous winter was very cold, now "an extreme weather".
My bullshit detector is in "red", i.e. "immediate alert".
It seems, no it clearly is the fact that climatologists themselves are all the time, nauseatingly, repeating "because last week was as it was it clearly point out for CC". No wonder if some of the denialists get pulled into that whirlwind, is it.
Note: I do not claim CC is not true, I do not claim it is not be due to human factors, I only claim many climatologists are a bunch of egoistic bullshitters.
If it were that simple. CO2 is of less concern than water (i.e. clouds). What if CO2 decrease the amount of clouds?
I fully agree we should not be pushing that much CO2 into the atmosphere, but the reason I dislike is that we have no clue what it will do. Another reason is that we really should not try to burn all fossile fuels ASAP.
Anyway, the climate change is not in top three of the problems we face. Population explosion is probably #1. Besides, the population explosion must be solved in order to solve CC.
The problem is not whether I "can" pay or not, the problem is that I bought the HW, it should be mine to what ever I want. Compare this to PS3 hacking and Sony lawsuit. Is Sony right?
P.S. No, I really cannot pay the price they are asking.
I really cannot comprehend how it can be legal to sell a camera whose recording which i made I cannot distribute without paying to some third party. The fact that they own my content goes against my moral so heavily, that I just cannot accept that. I would imagine the future of WebM to be far less "questionable" than H.264, after all MPEG-LA promises nothing, Google does.
Which camera would you buy, one with WebM encoder or with H.264?
The problem is, that you cannot come up with good names wit operator overloading.
The one and only place where "+" is good name is numbers. Is it worth it? Is it really worth to be able to add matrixes with +? I have never written a single program where "+" could have been a descriptive name for a function.
As the GP pointed out, every improvement will be patented. And the improvements will be incorporated into the spec. They will be in the spec just to keep it non-free. Otherwise the MPEG-LA would run out of business!
When people get the choice of either seeing the latest funny video flick or obeying to the principles of GPL, well, we both know which one wins, by a huge margin.
Therefore maybe the problem is not H.264, but GPL?
Instead of variable "a" you can have variable "autoCompletion". Instead of typing "autoCompletion.SetPreference(completionSetting)" you can type "au[completion key].Se[completion key]com[completion key]" plus perhaps a few other strokes.
Well, maybe methods like "SetBackgroundColor" are wrongly named, SBC anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
Please. I just bought Asus Aspire One 722, with "Linpus Linux".
The WIFI does not work reliably and the workarounds although improve situation do not solve. For example I have to enable PXE boot or the system hangs.
My audio volume cannot changed from keyboard.
My video is not fast enough to decode 1080 video - same machine with Windows easily. Whether I use prorietary drivers or FOSS does not matter.
The audio-video sync is likely "linux standard", that is less than two seconds off.
Compiz does not work in Xubuntu, at least not out-of-the box but then I do not care enough to search for solution.
Other than that, the machine is nice. It is slow compared to my quite old desktop, the boot time is unbelievably slow, etc. but other than that it is fast enough for my purposes. Much better than Atom...
Some of the problems is due to fact that there are several different HW revisions with different components. There is no way I can "buy HW which works with Linux" as both HW and Linux change on daily basis and both quite often to worse. Linux just is not for the desktop. I wonder how Canonical is going to do it.
Why? The whole idea of Micro 3/4 or Sony Nex (or like) is to avoid the worst part of DSLR - the mirror. Besides, Micro 3/4 lenses are smaller than DLSR lenses.
Unless, of course, you want to *feel like* a pro.
But I live in Finland.
Eh, sorry, you are right.
Windows??? What it has to do with the problem (Linux does not work)?
Well, Linux then clearly does not pass "nerd" test either. Or perhaps I am not nerd enough. Anyway I do not even know most of the "tweaking" parameters, and I could not care less. I just want it to work.
You are very much lying now. In Fukushima there were fatalities - and will be in the future (e.g. people have eaten radioactive cow). The amount of leaked caesium has been underestimated. By how much, nobody knows, real value is very much unknown.
According to "theory" there should have been far less than one core damage during last 60 years - in Fukushima alone there was four. From this we can deduce that CDF is underestimated by at least two orders of magnitude, and I'd be willing to bet it is intentional. In Germany there are no or very few fatalities from wind and solar combined - most of the solar is not rooftop (and the safety record of rooftop solar is much better than the claim - 60's does not count).
In none solar or wind powered areas (material scavenging, power generation, wahtnot) there are no 10'000 year "prohibited areas", in nuclear we have quite a few. But maybe this is "not much damage" ...
There are reactor designs that don't "blow".
Fukushima did not, apparently, "blow". I consider it did - I do not really care whether we get a "mushroom" (Chernobyl) or whether the uranium gets loose by earth quake/tsunami (or in post processing facility or ...).
Sure, modern nuclear reactors are safer than old ones, but so is everything else and therefore his statistics (from 60's) are a blatant lie.
Even the latest and greatest nuclear reactors (which exist only in paper ...) have, IMO, far too big CDF (core damage frequency). I do not give a flying fuck about theoretical CDF, I care what happens in real life. History has shown the theoretical CDF to be hugely underestimated and I see no reason to believe the future ones to be several orders of magnitude safer than current state-of-the-art ones like Olkiluoto 3.
"There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was."
The problem is, that the study you give is totally bogus, not alone because of that one lie. Sure all reactors are safer than the one just blew - until they blow. Just check the "core damage frequency" - even the "official" number is a tad big (if all energy in earth is done by nuclear, one reactor will blow every 100 years - history has shown the number to be few orders of magnitude bigger).
I have not heard of a single solar installation fatality - neither has the guy who did the "study". That is why he compared any "rooftop worker" to be equal to solar installation - WTF?
Then the time scales are very different. Why not calculate nuclear research done during 40-50's for nuclear energy death toll? Because it would make it look horrible.
I think they should move to gallons. If the measurements are "wrong", they can re-try the math with imperial, survey, nautical or furlong gallons.
You forgot it should cost $10'000 max, have 0-60 less than 6 seconds (with the trailer), etc.
There is no need to have a group where self-control is broken. A study where some "wild" children are taught self control compared to some who are not would be sufficient. Hard to do, though.
Oh, btw, there are no guarantees in life. The life is a gamble no matter what you do.
Problem is that they give the wrong answer.
Correct answer would, in many cases, be "although this weather pattern is against current predictions of CC, we still do believe CC is true (due to ...)".
Not, as they now do, "this is exactly as we predicted CC could cause", as they have several contradicting predictions from which they cherry-pick the good one for this time.
I agree the press is as much, or probably more, responsible for this bullshit.
Let me quote:
“It cannot be said that individual extreme weather events are directly caused by climate change. However, various extreme events will increase in both intensity and number,” Dr. Pachauri said, referring, for instance, to the floods in Australia.
Am I making that up too?
looking at the instruments
Go look at the 5mW laser, please.
Then compare that to 5W lamp.
Actually, why don't you go and try staring at 100mW laser, perhaps then you'll comprehend the difference of watt and laser.
When you don't know the difference between weather and climate, how do you know what you're talking about?
Extremely well said.
But then, why do every(?) climatologist claim "extreme phenomena will occur due to CC"? Why do they claim this exactly after some disaster?
Why the claim "winters should get warmer (in Scandinavia)" is not pushed anymore? Because this and previous winter was very cold, now "an extreme weather".
My bullshit detector is in "red", i.e. "immediate alert".
It seems, no it clearly is the fact that climatologists themselves are all the time, nauseatingly, repeating "because last week was as it was it clearly point out for CC". No wonder if some of the denialists get pulled into that whirlwind, is it.
Note: I do not claim CC is not true, I do not claim it is not be due to human factors, I only claim many climatologists are a bunch of egoistic bullshitters.
If it were that simple.
CO2 is of less concern than water (i.e. clouds). What if CO2 decrease the amount of clouds?
I fully agree we should not be pushing that much CO2 into the atmosphere, but the reason I dislike is that we have no clue what it will do. Another reason is that we really should not try to burn all fossile fuels ASAP.
Anyway, the climate change is not in top three of the problems we face. Population explosion is probably #1. Besides, the population explosion must be solved in order to solve CC.
The problem is not whether I "can" pay or not, the problem is that I bought the HW, it should be mine to what ever I want. Compare this to PS3 hacking and Sony lawsuit. Is Sony right?
P.S. No, I really cannot pay the price they are asking.
I really cannot comprehend how it can be legal to sell a camera whose recording which i made I cannot distribute without paying to some third party. The fact that they own my content goes against my moral so heavily, that I just cannot accept that.
I would imagine the future of WebM to be far less "questionable" than H.264, after all MPEG-LA promises nothing, Google does.
Which camera would you buy, one with WebM encoder or with H.264?
Not so where I live.
The problem is, that you cannot come up with good names wit operator overloading.
The one and only place where "+" is good name is numbers. Is it worth it? Is it really worth to be able to add matrixes with +? I have never written a single program where "+" could have been a descriptive name for a function.
Y.M. All your grand children have to do is wait.
As the GP pointed out, every improvement will be patented. And the improvements will be incorporated into the spec. They will be in the spec just to keep it non-free. Otherwise the MPEG-LA would run out of business!
When people get the choice of either seeing the latest funny video flick or obeying to the principles of GPL, well, we both know which one wins, by a huge margin.
Therefore maybe the problem is not H.264, but GPL?
It most likely is legal to use for personal purposes, it is "just" illegal to sell or distribute, etc.
Instead of variable "a" you can have variable "autoCompletion". Instead of typing "autoCompletion.SetPreference(completionSetting)" you can type "au[completion key].Se[completion key]com[completion key]" plus perhaps a few other strokes.
Well, maybe methods like "SetBackgroundColor" are wrongly named, SBC anyone?
I would argue pair programming decreases code quality: the other person distracts and annoys too much.