Slashdot editors are getting well justified heat for a headline like "Is Sugar Toxic?", since THAT is as ridiculous a "statement" (albeit with a question mark tacked onto it) as "Are Liquids Poisonous?"
To specify fructose is different, but "sugar" refers to a class of substances, and to imply that sucrose or glucose are "toxic" is crazy. Im all for RTFAing, but there needs to be some kind of responsibility from the editors. Inflammatory and provocative headlines need to stop.
There cannot and will not be a "citation" until it actually happens. Given the stance of Iran towards Israel, and given the fact that Israel is both highly vulnerable to a nuclear strike and highly capable of a strong counter attack, how crazy would you have to be to want to "see what will happen"?
Talking about "rights" in such matters doesnt seem to make much sense. Who defines what "rights" a country has? Certainly Iran is free to try to develop a nuclear program, but the rest of the world is free to try to prevent them-- Its a sure thing that once developed they will use them offensively.
IMO youd have to be crazy not to want to discourage Iran from having nukes, whatever your opinion of Israel is-- unless you really do want to spur on WW3, that is.
The 'slippery slope' conclusion is that everyone starts requiring them, meaning that you either have to remain in your job however crappy it becomes or you're unemployable in any industry using your skill set, at least for 'x' months, and you end up flipping burgers
Yes, its a pity we dont have things like Unions that could look out for the workers' rights. Working in the 1800s sure is rough!
IIRC the real issue was lack of support for Cairo, which became the backend of Firefox's graphics in V3. It has nothing to do with APIs like SHGetFolderPath; if firefox wants to write data, it writes it to the users firefox cache folder, which is defined in part by system variables.
And to say that theres "no significant changes between 2000 and Win7" is not correct. Programs trying to write data to Program Files may end up with it written to ProgramData; programs trying to write to %userprofile%\Application Data might run into problems (it appears theyve set up a symbolic link from those folders to the proper places, but Ive seen "access denied" issues trying to open those links).
There was a large change for kernel drivers between XP and Vista, but a program like Firefox has no valid reason to touch that.
I imagine it would have an impact on hardware acceleration of rendering, between Vista and XP...
Thats why theres "synaptic" and "add/remove"; and all you need to do is to install the KDE meta-package and all the necessary widgets and libraries are pulled in.
If youre going to try to argue that installing programs is HARD in linux, then I really dont know what to say. How much easier than "apt-get install kubuntu-desktop" (or its Synaptic / AddRemove equivalent) does it get?
Windows7 and Vistas biggest (only, for vista?) GUI improvement was the searchable start menu. Being able to press Win+"c-h-r-o-m"+enter to launch google chrome is VASTLY better than how the start menu was in XP; and TBQH any GUI that implements that feature gets a thumbs up from me.
Searching through byzantine menus to figure out whether Chrome counts as "network tools" or "internet" or "office" may not be an issue if you spend time to intimately learn the menu layout (which, being a geek, is honestly not a gigantic deal); but being able to just tell the computer "im looking for Chrome" seems to be a heck of a lot smarter.
You praise Linux's customizeability and variety, but left Linux because you couldnt be bothered to install Gnome 2 on one of the newer distros? The mind boggles.
Every time I see someone bemoan "Dumb Users being catered to", it makes me glad these people ARENT driving the GUI train in the Linux world. Guess what-- OSX and the iPad arent successful because they sport super powerful, customizeable GUIs. If you want Linux adoption to increase, you need a GUI that a 50 year old accountant can pick up and start learning without RTFA'ing.
GUIs are meant to be used, not researched, and if its not easy to use it is a failure. Its like you think "usability" is bad, or something.
Perhaps some of us no longer can get excited about spending hours just to make our desktop useable.
Personally, Gnome2 was always better than KDE for me because it was 90% of what I wanted, and I dont WANT to spend time customizing. Being able to is great, but sane defaults are really really important, and KDE seems to think "sane defaults" means "lets throw a bazillion features and widgets at the user, Im sure he will love them!".
Not having tried Unity, and not wanting to defend something I havent tried, Im really starting to think all the folks bashing Unity, Gnome 3, etc are really users who dont WANT a GUI, they want a graphical representation of a terminal.
Guess what, if Im using a mouse, I want simplicity. If I want power and complexity, I can always drop into a full screen terminal.
So, in your eyes, its perfectly OK to break several laws (fraud etc) so that you can break an entirely different law (outlawing online gambling), just because they disagree with said law?
I was under the impression that it was the duty of our Justice department to prosecute those who break laws, whether or not people agree with them-- that is, unless someone wants to pull the "but its like Rosa Parks" card, and insist that some gross violation of human rights is being performed here?
A top end core i7 would demolish any number of P4s in both performance and energy used. Newer architectures use smaller manufacturing, which requires less energy, have better performance-per-hz, and have better idling technologies.
To look at concrete numbers (source:), lets take a Pentium 90mhz, which makes things easy by drawing 9.0w of power. It gets 10 mhz per watt. Lets compare to a hex-core Core i7 970, running @ 3.2gHz with a draw of 130w. It gets 24.6mhz per watt; and if you break it down to per-core, it gets 147 mhz per watt. This ignores the fact that even with 35 pentium 90s in parallel, you would get nowhere near the performance of the Core i7, so even if their mhz per watt was the same the i7 would still be far more efficient.
The PSU might be 600W, but to give you some real world figures, lets take my system.
Built in 2006, Core2 Duo 1.86Ghz, GeForce 9600 graphics, 4GB ram, 2 hard drives, dvd RW drive, 550w PSU. With everything going full throttle, it uses about 225 watts. At idle, it uses about 160 watts.
When you factor in the energy (in)efficiency of the PSU (lets say 75% at idle, 80% at full load), you get a total energy requirement of the components of 160*.75= 120w minimum (idle), 225*.8=180w. So between 120w and 180w are being used by the components in my system.
There are a very few systems out there with dual, triple, and quad graphics cards which can indeed chew up upwards of 600w under load, but youre generally not going to find them worried about energy consumption except so far as it impacts heat given off. Energy saving seem to generally be an afterthought.
I can understand pirating a $50 game because you want to stick it to the publisher
There may be exceptions, but I have a hunch very few people pirate because they want to "stick it to the man". The vast majority seem to be, quite simply, cheap.
Any time you start referring to life in the US as "peasantry" your credibility goes out the window. Seriously, get some perspective-- do you realize just how ridiculously high the standard of living is for anyone in the US with a place to lay their heads? Pretty much everyone in the states has a standard of living higher than 95% of the rest of humanity, both present and historical.
"But jobs" is not an excuse to prop up businesses that cannot compete. I bear Mom n Pop no ill will, but capitalism hinges on the fact that non-competitive businesses die out (whether the competition be through prices or services). Start propping those failing businesses up and you start to tear capitalism down.
Look, if you really want to create jobs, and have less waste, just have the state hire people to dig ditches and fill them in. That makes about as much sense as propping up failed businesses "just because theyre local".
Are you talking about Chernobyl, or about Fukushima? I might note that a mere 50km away from Fukushima the radiation levels start dropping to negligible levels....
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot editors are getting well justified heat for a headline like "Is Sugar Toxic?", since THAT is as ridiculous a "statement" (albeit with a question mark tacked onto it) as "Are Liquids Poisonous?"
To specify fructose is different, but "sugar" refers to a class of substances, and to imply that sucrose or glucose are "toxic" is crazy. Im all for RTFAing, but there needs to be some kind of responsibility from the editors. Inflammatory and provocative headlines need to stop.
There cannot and will not be a "citation" until it actually happens. Given the stance of Iran towards Israel, and given the fact that Israel is both highly vulnerable to a nuclear strike and highly capable of a strong counter attack, how crazy would you have to be to want to "see what will happen"?
This is just to prevent ACCIDENTAL DoSing
Noone in their right mind would attempt an intentional DDOS using a full-blown graphical web browser.
Talking about "rights" in such matters doesnt seem to make much sense. Who defines what "rights" a country has? Certainly Iran is free to try to develop a nuclear program, but the rest of the world is free to try to prevent them-- Its a sure thing that once developed they will use them offensively.
IMO youd have to be crazy not to want to discourage Iran from having nukes, whatever your opinion of Israel is-- unless you really do want to spur on WW3, that is.
And if youll note, it doesnt say "there was no hack", but that "they see no evidence".
The 'slippery slope' conclusion is that everyone starts requiring them, meaning that you either have to remain in your job however crappy it becomes or you're unemployable in any industry using your skill set, at least for 'x' months, and you end up flipping burgers
Yes, its a pity we dont have things like Unions that could look out for the workers' rights. Working in the 1800s sure is rough!
IIRC the real issue was lack of support for Cairo, which became the backend of Firefox's graphics in V3. It has nothing to do with APIs like SHGetFolderPath; if firefox wants to write data, it writes it to the users firefox cache folder, which is defined in part by system variables.
And to say that theres "no significant changes between 2000 and Win7" is not correct. Programs trying to write data to Program Files may end up with it written to ProgramData; programs trying to write to %userprofile%\Application Data might run into problems (it appears theyve set up a symbolic link from those folders to the proper places, but Ive seen "access denied" issues trying to open those links).
There was a large change for kernel drivers between XP and Vista, but a program like Firefox has no valid reason to touch that.
I imagine it would have an impact on hardware acceleration of rendering, between Vista and XP...
Thats why theres "synaptic" and "add/remove"; and all you need to do is to install the KDE meta-package and all the necessary widgets and libraries are pulled in.
If youre going to try to argue that installing programs is HARD in linux, then I really dont know what to say. How much easier than "apt-get install kubuntu-desktop" (or its Synaptic / AddRemove equivalent) does it get?
Windows7 and Vistas biggest (only, for vista?) GUI improvement was the searchable start menu. Being able to press Win+"c-h-r-o-m"+enter to launch google chrome is VASTLY better than how the start menu was in XP; and TBQH any GUI that implements that feature gets a thumbs up from me.
Searching through byzantine menus to figure out whether Chrome counts as "network tools" or "internet" or "office" may not be an issue if you spend time to intimately learn the menu layout (which, being a geek, is honestly not a gigantic deal); but being able to just tell the computer "im looking for Chrome" seems to be a heck of a lot smarter.
Firefox 3 cant run on any windows earlier than 2000, IIRC. Sometimes dependencies just arent there.
I have never understood why people want a GUI thats not "dumbed down". I thought the point of a GUI was simplicity?
I guess this is going to be another my-way-or-the-highway
You do know that you can remove and add packages in Ubuntu, right? You can even switch window managers....
You praise Linux's customizeability and variety, but left Linux because you couldnt be bothered to install Gnome 2 on one of the newer distros? The mind boggles.
Every time I see someone bemoan "Dumb Users being catered to", it makes me glad these people ARENT driving the GUI train in the Linux world. Guess what-- OSX and the iPad arent successful because they sport super powerful, customizeable GUIs. If you want Linux adoption to increase, you need a GUI that a 50 year old accountant can pick up and start learning without RTFA'ing.
GUIs are meant to be used, not researched, and if its not easy to use it is a failure. Its like you think "usability" is bad, or something.
Perhaps some of us no longer can get excited about spending hours just to make our desktop useable.
Personally, Gnome2 was always better than KDE for me because it was 90% of what I wanted, and I dont WANT to spend time customizing. Being able to is great, but sane defaults are really really important, and KDE seems to think "sane defaults" means "lets throw a bazillion features and widgets at the user, Im sure he will love them!".
Not having tried Unity, and not wanting to defend something I havent tried, Im really starting to think all the folks bashing Unity, Gnome 3, etc are really users who dont WANT a GUI, they want a graphical representation of a terminal.
Guess what, if Im using a mouse, I want simplicity. If I want power and complexity, I can always drop into a full screen terminal.
Then use 1 ubuntu release back, and upgrade behind the pack. All the bugs will have been documented by the time you upgrade.
See, with 6 month releases, being 1 release behind ISNT A BIG DEAL.
What makes anyone think Microsoft, Google, and Apple have anywhere near $1T combined?
Google has ~$60b
Microsoft has ~$90b
Apple has ~$75b
SFTP has nothing to do with FTP, nor is it a wrapper. It is based on SSH, not FTP.
So, in your eyes, its perfectly OK to break several laws (fraud etc) so that you can break an entirely different law (outlawing online gambling), just because they disagree with said law?
I was under the impression that it was the duty of our Justice department to prosecute those who break laws, whether or not people agree with them-- that is, unless someone wants to pull the "but its like Rosa Parks" card, and insist that some gross violation of human rights is being performed here?
A top end core i7 would demolish any number of P4s in both performance and energy used. Newer architectures use smaller manufacturing, which requires less energy, have better performance-per-hz, and have better idling technologies.
To look at concrete numbers (source:), lets take a Pentium 90mhz, which makes things easy by drawing 9.0w of power. It gets 10 mhz per watt. Lets compare to a hex-core Core i7 970, running @ 3.2gHz with a draw of 130w. It gets 24.6mhz per watt; and if you break it down to per-core, it gets 147 mhz per watt. This ignores the fact that even with 35 pentium 90s in parallel, you would get nowhere near the performance of the Core i7, so even if their mhz per watt was the same the i7 would still be far more efficient.
The PSU might be 600W, but to give you some real world figures, lets take my system.
Built in 2006, Core2 Duo 1.86Ghz, GeForce 9600 graphics, 4GB ram, 2 hard drives, dvd RW drive, 550w PSU.
With everything going full throttle, it uses about 225 watts. At idle, it uses about 160 watts.
When you factor in the energy (in)efficiency of the PSU (lets say 75% at idle, 80% at full load), you get a total energy requirement of the components of 160*.75= 120w minimum (idle), 225*.8=180w. So between 120w and 180w are being used by the components in my system.
There are a very few systems out there with dual, triple, and quad graphics cards which can indeed chew up upwards of 600w under load, but youre generally not going to find them worried about energy consumption except so far as it impacts heat given off. Energy saving seem to generally be an afterthought.
I can understand pirating a $50 game because you want to stick it to the publisher
There may be exceptions, but I have a hunch very few people pirate because they want to "stick it to the man". The vast majority seem to be, quite simply, cheap.
Any time you start referring to life in the US as "peasantry" your credibility goes out the window. Seriously, get some perspective-- do you realize just how ridiculously high the standard of living is for anyone in the US with a place to lay their heads? Pretty much everyone in the states has a standard of living higher than 95% of the rest of humanity, both present and historical.
"But jobs" is not an excuse to prop up businesses that cannot compete. I bear Mom n Pop no ill will, but capitalism hinges on the fact that non-competitive businesses die out (whether the competition be through prices or services). Start propping those failing businesses up and you start to tear capitalism down.
Look, if you really want to create jobs, and have less waste, just have the state hire people to dig ditches and fill them in. That makes about as much sense as propping up failed businesses "just because theyre local".
Are you talking about Chernobyl, or about Fukushima? I might note that a mere 50km away from Fukushima the radiation levels start dropping to negligible levels....