Thanks for the clarification. Now your argument is less absurd. If we want to bring degrees of removal closer, consider this example — company XYZ sells computers to the government, which is a significant client, but not the only one. Would you believe that this company is publicly funded? I can't agree on that. Do public funds end up in the company? Yes, they do.
What you seem to suggest is that government should take an ethical stance and boycott those businesses that do wrong. But this is absurd, since boycott is employed by those, who only have indirect means of exerting pressure. Governments should combat unethical behaviour by passing laws (bans, regulations or taxation) and enforcing them.
without it they would not have a platform to provide abortions
By the same argument governments fund coffee shops. Since it pays for infrastructure and security, those places couldn't otherwise exist (at least their business would suffer significantly)
You are getting ahead of yourself. Rights to life and rights to choose are both very important, but before we can even begin to compare them, we need to figure how much rights are there to begin with. While it is obvious that egg has no rights, wile a 18-year-old has all of them, there blurry lines in between. Even where abortion is legal, I am not aware of legislation that would permit it, if the child could survive caesarean section. And yes, I don't know all the medical terms.
To add to wisnoskij point, populism is usually understood as providing policies, that provide solutions that sound good, but don't solve the problem it is said to be solving. Trump is a good example, because a lot of his policies are like that. Giant border wall? It sure feels like something effective, but unlikely to be such. If a policy is chosen on how good it sounds and not on how cost/effective (or just effective) it is, you can freely call it populist.
The people of Europe do not get to vote for the EC.
Directly? No, but they vote for European Parliament, which in turn votes for head of the European Commission. The parliament can oust the EC by vote of no confidence. This is a typical practice in European democracies that head of the executive is elected by parliament, although vote is usually for the whole cabinet, not only the chair.
MEPs are democratically elected but have no power to put forward a motion for debate or to enact a law.
Then who has the power to enact laws? EC can propose laws or amendments, but not enact them. EP also can ask EC to write legislation, and if EC throws a hissy fit, EP can remove them. Is this contrived? Yes. Is this undemocratic? I don't think so.
I understand that EU governance structure could be improved, but your claims seem to be inaccurate.
By the way, since we are talking about democratic institutions, Britain has warts of its own:
Unelected monarch. And no, elective monarchy is not contradiction in terms.
First past the post electoral system. UKIP got 12.7% of votes and only one seat. In EU parliament they got 24 seats (of 73 UK seats) with 26% of votes. Which one seems more democratic to you?
House of lords. Totally unelected. Appointed by queen, recommended by prime minister (kind of elected) or lords themselves (not elected).
14) Allow developers to have full flex time, so they don't have strict hours, they can work 8 hours over the course of the day.
Some flexibility is fine, but not fully. Sometimes you need to communicate with colleagues, or more likely, they need to communicate with you. If you don't want to be disturbed or talk to anyone, you might as well work from home. I find 4 hours of common work time for all team members a rather good compromise.
I just looked up some images on KDE open file dialogs and they look a lot like GNOME ones. Differences: GNOME has recursive search and bookmarks, KDE has zooming options and configuration. I am not sure what the configuration options are and if KDE also has bookmarks, but no screenshot shows them.
I am using Fedora/gedit in my workplace. I moved from Ubuntu to Fedora because each release of GNOME gave me better work tools. My favourites so far:
Button “Open” gives searchable(!) list of recent files. It searches in whole path, not just name. This has saved my time a lot, when I remember vaguely what I edited a week ago, but no idea where it was.
Changing syntax highlighting in status bar. I regularly copy code snippets from cgit web pages in text editor and quick syntax switching is really neat.
Changing tabulation settings are useful too, since codebase I work with have almost all variations on it. Sometimes even in a single project.
I personally use a lot of keyboard shortcuts, so removing the button bar didn't affect me at all. Moving Undo/Redo to context menu did reduce ability to dig into edit history fast, but keyboard shortcuts are more efficient, so I don't mind.
You must be joking. In case you are not, what has changed over the years:
Security: switching between kernel modes and user modes are costly; Secure coding practices take more CPU and RAM; firewalls; encryption etc.
Abstraction: you don't have to configure select, which sound card the game uses. Applications used to manage system resources themselves, now kernel does that. It is obligatory for security.
Graphics: resolution was 800x600, images were tiny and in 256color space (HDD speeds have not significantly improved, so then it was adequate, now you have SSD disks, which makes booting fast again), terrible video codecs (which still managed to buffer most of the time), laughable 3D.
Useful services: automounting USB sticks, instant messaging, e-mail notifications, calendar notifications, colour corrections, system logging etc.
Caching and indexing: since memory is cheap, just load all the data into memory, if data is no longer used, just keep it around, since it might be used again soon.
Web has changed a lot recently. I personally use noscript to deal with lot of the bloat, but the web now has some perks I would not want to give up.
It seems you have issues reading release notes and user manuals. Have you got any mental issues that makes it difficult to read long technical texts? There is no shame in having such difficulties and help is available. For example dyslexia and ADHD are well studied conditions and there are tons of treatments and comping mechanisms developed. I would suggest you go to GP to get tested. If you have diagnosis, it will help you to navigate this world better -- even those with no apparent disorders can find the world confusing. Take care!
I looked at the screenshots and GNOME 3 looks better. Perhaps you can clarify your dissatisfaction? What I see:
Missing file browser: it is still in gedit 3.x, just not enabled in the screenshot
Some missing buttons: all of those are sill available where they should be — either in menu or context menu. All of those have keyboard shotcuts.
Reduced wasted space: button bar, menus and title bar are are now compressed in one, reducing waste by 50% (excluding tabs).
Some settings are more accessible: code highlighting, tabulation setting per file, text line rendering options. Now status bar not only informs you of status, but lets you fix it, if something is not as it should be.
Of course there are visual differences, but those are customizable.
I just opened “open file” dialog (gedit 3.22) and it looks like it has widgets, panes, lists, buttons and such. Nowhere do I see any piles of any kind of trash. Cannot replicate issue, more information needed.
I jumped ship because they took a usable desktop and redesigned it for tablets and then tried to push it to desktop users.
What made you think GNOME was designed for tablets? The 3.0 was totally unusable on tablets. Further releases got slightly better, but I have not seen any GNOME developer actively working on making it work on tablets, bar fixing bugs being reported. Was it the big application icons in grid layout and removal of “start menu”? This is a visual similarity at best and functionally very different:
To get to application list, you have to get in overview mode, press grid button and witch to “all aplications” mode. This feature is buried and not the usual use case.
Most used applications should be in the docker. Just like on windows or macs.
Accessing random application is most efficiently done with keyboard — get into overview and start typing a keyword. Similar to kupfer. In tablet that is not a good usecase.
Accessing “overview” is very desktop oriented. Compared with menu system, it is faster with mouse and as fast with keyboard.
Besides, why would design elements found in touch interfaces should be an obvious fault? Big icons and buttins are necessary in touch interfaces, but they help on desktop too — time to position a mouse pointer on a tiny button takes more time than to put it on a big button. It does cost a screen estate, but at lest for me it is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
But the left is also wrong in saying it's nothing but chemicals and can be handled with medicine alone.
Disease metaphor is rather useful here. A lot of those can't be cured, only managed. For example, a person can have asthma and not even know about it, if they live in an environment which lacks the triggers, like pollution, allergens or humidity. If changing an environment is not an option, medication is.
Perhaps I am reading different liberal media, but I haven't seen a viewpoint that treats addiction as easely solvable by medication first and only. Can you point out your sources? I really would like to see them.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the clarification. Now your argument is less absurd. If we want to bring degrees of removal closer, consider this example — company XYZ sells computers to the government, which is a significant client, but not the only one. Would you believe that this company is publicly funded? I can't agree on that. Do public funds end up in the company? Yes, they do.
What you seem to suggest is that government should take an ethical stance and boycott those businesses that do wrong. But this is absurd, since boycott is employed by those, who only have indirect means of exerting pressure. Governments should combat unethical behaviour by passing laws (bans, regulations or taxation) and enforcing them.
And don't patronize me.
without it they would not have a platform to provide abortions
By the same argument governments fund coffee shops. Since it pays for infrastructure and security, those places couldn't otherwise exist (at least their business would suffer significantly)
Again, you ignore the woman's choice
You are getting ahead of yourself. Rights to life and rights to choose are both very important, but before we can even begin to compare them, we need to figure how much rights are there to begin with. While it is obvious that egg has no rights, wile a 18-year-old has all of them, there blurry lines in between. Even where abortion is legal, I am not aware of legislation that would permit it, if the child could survive caesarean section. And yes, I don't know all the medical terms.
And do not forget the past, even with antiquated equipment, Europe fell in a month
Europe fell in a month to whom? Europe.
I think you should get a bit more refined understanding on what is Europe, states within it and their history before analysing its conflicts.
To add to wisnoskij point, populism is usually understood as providing policies, that provide solutions that sound good, but don't solve the problem it is said to be solving. Trump is a good example, because a lot of his policies are like that. Giant border wall? It sure feels like something effective, but unlikely to be such. If a policy is chosen on how good it sounds and not on how cost/effective (or just effective) it is, you can freely call it populist.
The people of Europe do not get to vote for the EC.
Directly? No, but they vote for European Parliament, which in turn votes for head of the European Commission. The parliament can oust the EC by vote of no confidence. This is a typical practice in European democracies that head of the executive is elected by parliament, although vote is usually for the whole cabinet, not only the chair.
MEPs are democratically elected but have no power to put forward a motion for debate or to enact a law.
Then who has the power to enact laws? EC can propose laws or amendments, but not enact them. EP also can ask EC to write legislation, and if EC throws a hissy fit, EP can remove them. Is this contrived? Yes. Is this undemocratic? I don't think so.
I understand that EU governance structure could be improved, but your claims seem to be inaccurate.
By the way, since we are talking about democratic institutions, Britain has warts of its own:
14) Allow developers to have full flex time, so they don't have strict hours, they can work 8 hours over the course of the day.
Some flexibility is fine, but not fully. Sometimes you need to communicate with colleagues, or more likely, they need to communicate with you. If you don't want to be disturbed or talk to anyone, you might as well work from home. I find 4 hours of common work time for all team members a rather good compromise.
The Rolling Stone might give a favourable headline, but the companies don't control the message that media produce. Why risk bad press?
Can you cite any evidence that sexism is worse in technology than in other industries?
Why? OP never claimed that it is worse, just that it is a serious problem.
I wonder how much Republicans would be ready to pay to silence Trump's opinions.
Professional victimhood is a cottage industry.
Interesting. It seems that all three of them produce stuff, not only being harassed.
as a plus by pulling their advertising dollars they can gain free advertisement from the news stories about pulling their ads.
This sounds like a risky strategy. I don't think a headline “MacDonalds pulls funding from ISIS” would be in their interest.
I just looked up some images on KDE open file dialogs and they look a lot like GNOME ones. Differences: GNOME has recursive search and bookmarks, KDE has zooming options and configuration. I am not sure what the configuration options are and if KDE also has bookmarks, but no screenshot shows them.
I am using Fedora/gedit in my workplace. I moved from Ubuntu to Fedora because each release of GNOME gave me better work tools. My favourites so far:
I personally use a lot of keyboard shortcuts, so removing the button bar didn't affect me at all. Moving Undo/Redo to context menu did reduce ability to dig into edit history fast, but keyboard shortcuts are more efficient, so I don't mind.
The average end user knows nothing about security
Users don't think in these categories, but when malware gets into the computer, they notice and it hurts.
has never had to configure the sound card manually
In the years of Windows 3.1 (witch ran on DOS), we did that. Yeah, I have weird childhood memories.
Caching and indexing have never been end-user terms that they understand
Understood? Maybe not. But the effects are real. World without cashing is like world without SSD disks at boot time.
Palm Desktop could notify one of calendar stuff and task list items coming due
True. Each little notification daemon is small and doesn't eat up much space. But there are a lot of those little workers, that clog up the memory.
You must be joking. In case you are not, what has changed over the years:
It seems you have issues reading release notes and user manuals. Have you got any mental issues that makes it difficult to read long technical texts? There is no shame in having such difficulties and help is available. For example dyslexia and ADHD are well studied conditions and there are tons of treatments and comping mechanisms developed. I would suggest you go to GP to get tested. If you have diagnosis, it will help you to navigate this world better -- even those with no apparent disorders can find the world confusing. Take care!
I am more surprised someone modded it up. It has no insight, just offtopic trolling.
I looked at the screenshots and GNOME 3 looks better. Perhaps you can clarify your dissatisfaction? What I see:
Weird. Linus switched. You think it was because of fraud or coercion?
Release notes show no removal of features. If you notice regressions, please report it.
I just opened “open file” dialog (gedit 3.22) and it looks like it has widgets, panes, lists, buttons and such. Nowhere do I see any piles of any kind of trash. Cannot replicate issue, more information needed.
I jumped ship because they took a usable desktop and redesigned it for tablets and then tried to push it to desktop users.
What made you think GNOME was designed for tablets? The 3.0 was totally unusable on tablets. Further releases got slightly better, but I have not seen any GNOME developer actively working on making it work on tablets, bar fixing bugs being reported. Was it the big application icons in grid layout and removal of “start menu”? This is a visual similarity at best and functionally very different:
Besides, why would design elements found in touch interfaces should be an obvious fault? Big icons and buttins are necessary in touch interfaces, but they help on desktop too — time to position a mouse pointer on a tiny button takes more time than to put it on a big button. It does cost a screen estate, but at lest for me it is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
But the left is also wrong in saying it's nothing but chemicals and can be handled with medicine alone.
Disease metaphor is rather useful here. A lot of those can't be cured, only managed. For example, a person can have asthma and not even know about it, if they live in an environment which lacks the triggers, like pollution, allergens or humidity. If changing an environment is not an option, medication is.
Perhaps I am reading different liberal media, but I haven't seen a viewpoint that treats addiction as easely solvable by medication first and only. Can you point out your sources? I really would like to see them.
Don't do stupid shit.
I am sure this is a sound advice that actually helps people improve their behaviour. </s>