OK , you know, I'm sick of hearing this shit. Freedom isn't an economic policy. Socialism is not inherently less free than capitalism - in fact, it's more free, because in a representative government you have at least some influence over the government monopolies. With corporate monopolies, you have no say whatsoever - not even with your pocketbook.
You can't apply free market ideas to natural monopolies. Your only options are to regulate them heavily, nationalize them, or watch the citizenry be forced to bend over and take it. I personally like the second option, because I get to vote for the guy who decides what my service will consist of and how much it will cost. Most governments in the US tend toward the first option.
The only entity with more freedom under the third option is the monopoly itself, and it's most likely a corporation, not a citizen. The only people who benefit there are its shareholders.
So cut out this crap about freedom. It's not about freedom. You're not being forced to work on a collective farm here. You're not losing any of your rights, except the right to use a monopoly to unfairly manipulate the market, which shouldn't be a right anyway.
Now, if you want to consider socialism and its effects on non-monopolies, you can talk about freedom. Wired telecom is, and always will be, just as much a monopoly as water, power, and sewer, and if you choose non-regulated private sector companies to run it, you've thrown your freedom away.
Actually, no, I am against software patents altogether. I was merely pointing out a major flaw in how they are assigned. When software patents are legal, there is going to be people who abuse the system to the detriment of all, and judges are not knowledgeable enough to decide what is obvious. Even if they were, small-time coders can't afford to defend themselves against patent trolls.
Software patents are unnecessary anyway - you don't have an algorithmic research industry that needs that sort of protection. The companies acquiring these patents derive their primary income from products, not patent licenses.
Software patents serve two uses: They raise the barrier of entry into the software market They allow litigation-based companies to profit via lawsuits.
The big dogs like the first use, which is why they lobby for software patents. No one likes the second use. Small developers don't like either. If you're trying to incentivize innovation, the small developers are who you need to be looking at.
I don't know anything about the Unitary patent, so I won't comment on that.
Software patents are bad because they make it all but impossible for small companies or individuals to legally make software. IBM has the legal resources to research what patents a particular product may violate, but a guy who writes a script to create M3U playlists doesn't. Look at all the patent cases the smartphone companies are dealing with - they have a team of lawyers and can't avoid violating patents.
Bear in mind that patents are supposed to enhance innovation, not stifle it. They work well for actual physical inventions, and 20 years (in the U.S. anyway) seems to be a decent time to develop your product and bring it to market. 20 years in the software world is the difference between Windows for Workgroups and Windows 7. By the time a patent expires in the software world, there's a good chance it'll be irrelevant.
There is also a problem with the type of patents awarded. I can understand the LZW compression patent (think.GIF files), since it's non-obvious and required a good amount of work, but what about the 1-click shopping patent awarded to Amazon? How about the plethora of UI-related patents?
Right now, the system basically works because the patent trolls ignore the small fish and go after the big guys first. It's not a stable situation, and it basically means that millions of developers are unknowingly breaking the law every day. That's a good sign that the system is broken - after all, there's nothing to stop IBM from starting RIAA-type lawsuits against individual open source developers.
Don't confuse software patents with other types of IP, like copyright. Copyright laws don't hamper the creation of new IP* in the same way software patents do. It's a completely different issue.
*Actually, they do make it harder to create derivative works. The original U.S. copyright was for 14 years, and many (such as myself) view the extended copyrights as theft of the public domain, but like I said, that's a different issue.
Tyranny of the majority means letting the will of the majority rule even in cases where it causes real harm to the minority. This is usually seen in civil rights situations. Jim Crow type laws tend to pop up in places with a racial imbalance, and similar laws concerning religious practice are seen in places where one religion is dominant.
As an example, lynching was all but legal in the U.S. in some places, and was extensively used in the southern states both before and after the Civil War. The reconstruction-era (late 1800s) Democratic Party at the time was very focused on white supremacy, and since much of the lynching served to keep blacks away from the polls, they resisted any urge to put a stop to it.
Another example is from colonial Massachusetts, where quakers were banned completely and, on a few occasions, executed. That eventually led to Massachusetts losing its charter and having a governor appointed by the crown.
Now, I don't agree that the PATRIOT ACT falls under "tyranny of the majority", but it's obvious that the politicians have taken advantage of the fear generated by 9/11 to pass laws that would otherwise be unpassable. I'm hoping now that the wars are winding down that we'll get some more pressure from the populace to undo some of the damage.
Linux can use AD authentication. Sure, you don't get some of the nice admin tools, but it works and has done so for some time.
It takes a bit of setup, and doesn't work out of the box, but if you build your own install images then it's pretty easy to deploy.
If you're not using AD itself, you can use a simplified version of it that's been used on UNIX boxen for quite some time by setting up heimdal and openldap in conjunction with NFS servers. RHEL is made to support this, if I remember correctly, and Sun published a document on setting it up for Solaris back in the v8 days.
Most distros require a bit of work to make any of this function, but that's mostly due to your first point - a lot of business software is Windows only, and servers generally don't need to be part of the general authentication system for most things, so there isn't much call for having this as a default. That might change as more non-US countries focus more on Linux.
The W3C, despite what some people think, is not a kind of "web government" that sits above browser makers, website designers etc. and tells them what to do.
Since when? Remember XHTML? Or XForms? They were so far ahead of the curve that they took years to notice the rest of the community had turned off somewhere way back. Of course, that's back when Microsoft believed that packaging IE with Windows meant they didn't need to fix bugs or add features to it anymore.
Sure, some of their more out there stuff sparked some ideas, but a good chunk of it went unimplemented. That's why the WHATWG got started - the W3C was going its own route, and the industry finally got tired of dealing with them.
If I give you something that has a secret camera installed, and you take it into your home, is that an invasion of your privacy?
If I give a child something with a secret camera installed, and they take it into their bedroom, and I use that camera to take pictures of the child in his or her bedroom, and store those pictures, am I violating that child's privacy?
If some of those pictures capture the child naked, am I guilty of child pornography?
So... what makes this any different, just because it's a laptop issued by a school?
The trucks that say they're not responsible for objects coming off the road are right, actually. You're not responsible if your tire throws up a rock or something and it damages another vehicle. That rule applies to cars as well as trucks - after all, it's the state's responsibility to keep the roads clear.
Tires are similar in a way. If a tire shreds on your vehicle and you throw tread all over, if it hits another vehicle, you're responsible. Once it hits the asphalt and comes to a rest, it's the state's responsibility.
Now, what I don't know is if the rock and gravel haulers have the same protection when they say "stay back 200 feet".
A kid sees a word processor or a spreadsheet as something they use when they have to do so, because of school. Most kids won't experiment with them.
A course teaches you not only the basics of how to use the programs, but other features that are occasionally very useful but not apparent to the casual user. Things like pivot tables aren't obvious to someone who only cranks up Word to do book reports.
I had used office software since WP 5.1, and Microsoft Office since Office 95. When I went back to college, one of the requirements for all students was to take a course on using Microsoft Office. I thought I knew everything I needed to know about it (except for Access, which I had played around with but never seriously used) and I was surprised by the things I never knew were there. I ended up learning quite a bit.
Elementary school typing was far from universal when the Commodore 64 was available - your school was the exception, not the rule.
I'm probably around the same age (I had a Commodore at home during elementary school, that I two-fingered half to death) and the local school system I attended taught it in high school. When I took the course, half our time was spent on 286s and the other half on IBM electric typewriters.
I believe typing is now taught in middle school in my district.
There's plenty of grunt work in the air force. One of my sergeants was originally a cargo loader - all he did was load planes. A friend of mine was a POL specialist - i.e. he fueled planes. He lucked out because he knew a bit about small engine repair and spent most of his time doing maintenance on pumps and stuff, but his coworkers spent their time out on the flightline running fuel trucks around. The people who work in services do everything from landscaping to handing out towels at the gym. Hell, my career field (computer systems operator) had people who were essentially warehouse workers.
We didn't dig too many ditches, but if you define "grunt work" as "unskilled manual labor", then yeah, there's plenty of that.
I lived there for a couple years, but I'm not an expert (I lived on base, but went out and about quite a bit).
From what I can tell, it has something to do with the fact that they don't have historical ties to a religion that condemns sexuality. A lot of the prudishness in western culture comes from the idea that sex should be a private matter between married people.
It's not natural. Men are attracted to young women because they make better mates from an evolutionary standpoint. As long as they survive childbirth, they'll stand a better chance of surviving long enough so their children can tend for themselves, and they're less likely to have diseases. Think about it - men like perky breasts - the type women start to lose after age 17 or so if they're not wearing a bra.
In western culture, we're taught that thinking sexual thoughts about young girls is evil, and that keeps it somewhat in check. Japan, however, doesn't have as strong a moral issue with it.
Now, as for the rape scenes and other misogynistic themes, this is just a theory I formed while I was there, but I've always thought it was due to the fact that women were granted equal rights before the culture was ready. Japanese culture still has strong gender roles, with men very much in charge. The legal reality doesn't match the culture, so a lot of Japanese men resent being under a female authority figure in the same way that a white guy from Mississippi in 1940 would feel about having a black boss. We'll probably see that sort of thing fade over the next couple generations.
In the Air Force, that falls under OPSEC (OPerational SECurity). I'm certain the other services have a similar, if not identical, set of rules. It's pretty simple - don't talk about work. The amount of intelligence that can be gathered just by overhearing simple conversations is surprisingly vast - our security officer cited a number of cases where it got people killed back in 'nam.
People in the military don't have a full set of constitutional rights, and one of the ones they most decidedly do not have is the right to free speech (or press, or assembly, or petition, although they do have freedom of religion). The military can and probably should require all members register any social media sites with their security officer or first sergeant.
The problem is that it would be a morale killer - and our servicemen and women need all the morale they can get, with these long deployments.
I've had good luck with them, in general. It took my 3-year-old pouring milk into it to kill my last one. My new one is USB, so we'll see how that works out.
One reason I always buy Unicomp is that, when I lost a few keycaps from an old type M, I wrote them an email asking if I could buy replacements. They asked for my address, which I supplied (I figured they'd need to calculate shipping or something). Never heard from them after that, but a week later I had the keycaps I requested in my mailbox, free of charge.
That type of service earned them a lifetime customer with me.
Windows 3.x and NT 3.x (and 1.3, IIRC) had only a maximize and minimize on the upper right.
If you wanted to close the window, you either used the upper left menu to select "close" or you double clicked the menu.
I really liked that, and to this day my FVWM setup is pretty much the same, although nowdays I right-click to close instead of double click. It drives my friends crazy when they use my machines.
Last time I went to Sun's website, I got the impression that Oracle was pretty much discontinuing any non-RAY workstations. They seem to be only focusing on the large server segment, as far as hardware goes.
There's no point in using GNOME on these (except for RAY setups, of course) since they'll mostly be administered remotely anyway, so I'd imagine that any considerations about Solaris are pretty much moot at this point.
Safari does this on the iPhone. It does not, last time I saw it (which granted, it's been a while) do it on a PC, or presumably a Mac.
You also don't go around touching the screen on your PC to click things, unless you have a specialized setup. Phone users seem to get along just fine regardless.
I know the phone is supposed to supplant the desktop in some idealized world (I'll believe it when I see it), but that doesn't mean the desktop needs to look and act like a phone.
There isn't such a thing as "full chrome" on a phone, or a PC for that matter. Chrome for PC uses a lot of code that the phone doesn't, and vice-versa. The important bits (rendering engine, etc.) will be shared, but the GUI code is going to be different based on its platform.
Most web browsers support other protocols as well, like ftp:// for instance. I remember an IRC plugin for Netscape that used irc://, and it also used to open a terminal window for telnet:// sessions.
I remember using gopher:// on some web browser back when the Alice Cooper fan club had a gopher site, although I'd be surprised if any modern browser supported it.
Granted, pretty much no one uses such things anymore (except maybe ftp:// so I doubt it'll be a big deal, as long as you can still type or paste links starting with http:/// into it.
You could always put alias ls='ls -1' in your.profile, if lists are your thing. There were a lot of older terminals and systems (including DOS) that didn't have scrolling capability, so the grid layout allowed people to see more without having to resort to using more.
I like the grid layout for most stuff, personally (talking in general, not just in ls), but it might just be because I'm used to it.
I do know that iOS is pretty list heavy once you get off the springboard, and the little I've seen of my girlfriend's Android seems to be the same. On desktop systems, lists are a huge waste of horizontal space, especially given our monitors tend to be wider than they are tall, but I know that in older GNOME and Windows Explorer you can change your view to lists, and I wouldn't be surprised if Unity and MacOS had that option as well.
Given your inability to spell, I'd say you're either not one of the people Obama wants to tax (i.e. rich folks) or you're a trust funder who fucked off his education.
Also, I'd like to point out your inability to distinguish federal from state government (change was Obama's thing, this is the California senate), your complete lack of memory (warrantless searches started during the Bush era - so pretty much both parties have shown a willingness for them), and your inability to make sense (Democrats are about personality? WTF?).
How about doing yourself a favor and learn a bit about government before spouting all your inane bullshit?
What he's saying is that the Democrats have to basically do it against the wishes of their base. Sure, they grant stuff to big business, but if they do it too much their own party (registered voters, I mean) turns on them.
The Republicans can do it all day, because they believe that helping big business is the way to go, and their base supports them.
It's really too bad we're stuck with a two party system... a small party that's gung ho for consumer rights would do us a lot of good under a parliamentary system.
How about we stop assuming half the country is full of deadbeats who refuse to get a job?
Seriously, I know personally two families in my town who would classify as "welfare families". Yeah, they suck, and the system shouldn't support them.
I also know a shitload of people who haven't been able to find a job after the meat packing plant shut down. They got unemployment (which they paid into while employed, that's the way unemployment works - it's a type of insurance) and food stamps. The two combined generally don't equal the amount those people were making while employed, and don't have things like health insurance and 401k programs.
You can argue against food stamps (or EBT or whatever), but starving people tend to get food, one way or another. Some of those ways aren't pretty. I'd rather pay for the food stamp program.
Note also that, unless you're independently wealthy or self employed, all the benefits would also go to you, in case your employer decided to send your job to Mexico or India or wherever. It's called a safety net for a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Used to believe in freedom?
Freedom?
OK , you know, I'm sick of hearing this shit. Freedom isn't an economic policy. Socialism is not inherently less free than capitalism - in fact, it's more free, because in a representative government you have at least some influence over the government monopolies. With corporate monopolies, you have no say whatsoever - not even with your pocketbook.
You can't apply free market ideas to natural monopolies. Your only options are to regulate them heavily, nationalize them, or watch the citizenry be forced to bend over and take it. I personally like the second option, because I get to vote for the guy who decides what my service will consist of and how much it will cost. Most governments in the US tend toward the first option.
The only entity with more freedom under the third option is the monopoly itself, and it's most likely a corporation, not a citizen. The only people who benefit there are its shareholders.
So cut out this crap about freedom. It's not about freedom. You're not being forced to work on a collective farm here. You're not losing any of your rights, except the right to use a monopoly to unfairly manipulate the market, which shouldn't be a right anyway.
Now, if you want to consider socialism and its effects on non-monopolies, you can talk about freedom. Wired telecom is, and always will be, just as much a monopoly as water, power, and sewer, and if you choose non-regulated private sector companies to run it, you've thrown your freedom away.
Actually, no, I am against software patents altogether. I was merely pointing out a major flaw in how they are assigned. When software patents are legal, there is going to be people who abuse the system to the detriment of all, and judges are not knowledgeable enough to decide what is obvious. Even if they were, small-time coders can't afford to defend themselves against patent trolls.
Software patents are unnecessary anyway - you don't have an algorithmic research industry that needs that sort of protection. The companies acquiring these patents derive their primary income from products, not patent licenses.
Software patents serve two uses:
They raise the barrier of entry into the software market
They allow litigation-based companies to profit via lawsuits.
The big dogs like the first use, which is why they lobby for software patents. No one likes the second use. Small developers don't like either. If you're trying to incentivize innovation, the small developers are who you need to be looking at.
I don't know anything about the Unitary patent, so I won't comment on that.
Software patents are bad because they make it all but impossible for small companies or individuals to legally make software. IBM has the legal resources to research what patents a particular product may violate, but a guy who writes a script to create M3U playlists doesn't. Look at all the patent cases the smartphone companies are dealing with - they have a team of lawyers and can't avoid violating patents.
Bear in mind that patents are supposed to enhance innovation, not stifle it. They work well for actual physical inventions, and 20 years (in the U.S. anyway) seems to be a decent time to develop your product and bring it to market. 20 years in the software world is the difference between Windows for Workgroups and Windows 7. By the time a patent expires in the software world, there's a good chance it'll be irrelevant.
There is also a problem with the type of patents awarded. I can understand the LZW compression patent (think .GIF files), since it's non-obvious and required a good amount of work, but what about the 1-click shopping patent awarded to Amazon? How about the plethora of UI-related patents?
Right now, the system basically works because the patent trolls ignore the small fish and go after the big guys first. It's not a stable situation, and it basically means that millions of developers are unknowingly breaking the law every day. That's a good sign that the system is broken - after all, there's nothing to stop IBM from starting RIAA-type lawsuits against individual open source developers.
Don't confuse software patents with other types of IP, like copyright. Copyright laws don't hamper the creation of new IP* in the same way software patents do. It's a completely different issue.
*Actually, they do make it harder to create derivative works. The original U.S. copyright was for 14 years, and many (such as myself) view the extended copyrights as theft of the public domain, but like I said, that's a different issue.
Here in Europe, we call that democracy.
Tyranny of the majority means letting the will of the majority rule even in cases where it causes real harm to the minority. This is usually seen in civil rights situations. Jim Crow type laws tend to pop up in places with a racial imbalance, and similar laws concerning religious practice are seen in places where one religion is dominant.
As an example, lynching was all but legal in the U.S. in some places, and was extensively used in the southern states both before and after the Civil War. The reconstruction-era (late 1800s) Democratic Party at the time was very focused on white supremacy, and since much of the lynching served to keep blacks away from the polls, they resisted any urge to put a stop to it.
Another example is from colonial Massachusetts, where quakers were banned completely and, on a few occasions, executed. That eventually led to Massachusetts losing its charter and having a governor appointed by the crown.
Now, I don't agree that the PATRIOT ACT falls under "tyranny of the majority", but it's obvious that the politicians have taken advantage of the fear generated by 9/11 to pass laws that would otherwise be unpassable. I'm hoping now that the wars are winding down that we'll get some more pressure from the populace to undo some of the damage.
Linux can use AD authentication. Sure, you don't get some of the nice admin tools, but it works and has done so for some time.
It takes a bit of setup, and doesn't work out of the box, but if you build your own install images then it's pretty easy to deploy.
If you're not using AD itself, you can use a simplified version of it that's been used on UNIX boxen for quite some time by setting up heimdal and openldap in conjunction with NFS servers. RHEL is made to support this, if I remember correctly, and Sun published a document on setting it up for Solaris back in the v8 days.
Most distros require a bit of work to make any of this function, but that's mostly due to your first point - a lot of business software is Windows only, and servers generally don't need to be part of the general authentication system for most things, so there isn't much call for having this as a default. That might change as more non-US countries focus more on Linux.
That text isn't offensive in Tennessee. Try changing it to something like, "those white women just love that black cock".
The W3C, despite what some people think, is not a kind of "web government" that sits above browser makers, website designers etc. and tells them what to do.
Since when? Remember XHTML? Or XForms? They were so far ahead of the curve that they took years to notice the rest of the community had turned off somewhere way back. Of course, that's back when Microsoft believed that packaging IE with Windows meant they didn't need to fix bugs or add features to it anymore.
Sure, some of their more out there stuff sparked some ideas, but a good chunk of it went unimplemented. That's why the WHATWG got started - the W3C was going its own route, and the industry finally got tired of dealing with them.
If I give you something that has a secret camera installed, and you take it into your home, is that an invasion of your privacy?
If I give a child something with a secret camera installed, and they take it into their bedroom, and I use that camera to take pictures of the child in his or her bedroom, and store those pictures, am I violating that child's privacy?
If some of those pictures capture the child naked, am I guilty of child pornography?
So... what makes this any different, just because it's a laptop issued by a school?
The trucks that say they're not responsible for objects coming off the road are right, actually. You're not responsible if your tire throws up a rock or something and it damages another vehicle. That rule applies to cars as well as trucks - after all, it's the state's responsibility to keep the roads clear.
Tires are similar in a way. If a tire shreds on your vehicle and you throw tread all over, if it hits another vehicle, you're responsible. Once it hits the asphalt and comes to a rest, it's the state's responsibility.
Now, what I don't know is if the rock and gravel haulers have the same protection when they say "stay back 200 feet".
A kid sees a word processor or a spreadsheet as something they use when they have to do so, because of school. Most kids won't experiment with them.
A course teaches you not only the basics of how to use the programs, but other features that are occasionally very useful but not apparent to the casual user. Things like pivot tables aren't obvious to someone who only cranks up Word to do book reports.
I had used office software since WP 5.1, and Microsoft Office since Office 95. When I went back to college, one of the requirements for all students was to take a course on using Microsoft Office. I thought I knew everything I needed to know about it (except for Access, which I had played around with but never seriously used) and I was surprised by the things I never knew were there. I ended up learning quite a bit.
Elementary school typing was far from universal when the Commodore 64 was available - your school was the exception, not the rule.
I'm probably around the same age (I had a Commodore at home during elementary school, that I two-fingered half to death) and the local school system I attended taught it in high school. When I took the course, half our time was spent on 286s and the other half on IBM electric typewriters.
I believe typing is now taught in middle school in my district.
There's plenty of grunt work in the air force. One of my sergeants was originally a cargo loader - all he did was load planes. A friend of mine was a POL specialist - i.e. he fueled planes. He lucked out because he knew a bit about small engine repair and spent most of his time doing maintenance on pumps and stuff, but his coworkers spent their time out on the flightline running fuel trucks around. The people who work in services do everything from landscaping to handing out towels at the gym. Hell, my career field (computer systems operator) had people who were essentially warehouse workers.
We didn't dig too many ditches, but if you define "grunt work" as "unskilled manual labor", then yeah, there's plenty of that.
I lived there for a couple years, but I'm not an expert (I lived on base, but went out and about quite a bit).
From what I can tell, it has something to do with the fact that they don't have historical ties to a religion that condemns sexuality. A lot of the prudishness in western culture comes from the idea that sex should be a private matter between married people.
It's not natural. Men are attracted to young women because they make better mates from an evolutionary standpoint. As long as they survive childbirth, they'll stand a better chance of surviving long enough so their children can tend for themselves, and they're less likely to have diseases. Think about it - men like perky breasts - the type women start to lose after age 17 or so if they're not wearing a bra.
In western culture, we're taught that thinking sexual thoughts about young girls is evil, and that keeps it somewhat in check. Japan, however, doesn't have as strong a moral issue with it.
Now, as for the rape scenes and other misogynistic themes, this is just a theory I formed while I was there, but I've always thought it was due to the fact that women were granted equal rights before the culture was ready. Japanese culture still has strong gender roles, with men very much in charge. The legal reality doesn't match the culture, so a lot of Japanese men resent being under a female authority figure in the same way that a white guy from Mississippi in 1940 would feel about having a black boss. We'll probably see that sort of thing fade over the next couple generations.
In the Air Force, that falls under OPSEC (OPerational SECurity). I'm certain the other services have a similar, if not identical, set of rules. It's pretty simple - don't talk about work. The amount of intelligence that can be gathered just by overhearing simple conversations is surprisingly vast - our security officer cited a number of cases where it got people killed back in 'nam.
People in the military don't have a full set of constitutional rights, and one of the ones they most decidedly do not have is the right to free speech (or press, or assembly, or petition, although they do have freedom of religion). The military can and probably should require all members register any social media sites with their security officer or first sergeant.
The problem is that it would be a morale killer - and our servicemen and women need all the morale they can get, with these long deployments.
He's one guy. You think everyone here has the same opinions?
There are conservatives here, as evidenced by all the Republican Kool-Aid you've been drinking. He's just not one of them.
I've had good luck with them, in general. It took my 3-year-old pouring milk into it to kill my last one. My new one is USB, so we'll see how that works out.
One reason I always buy Unicomp is that, when I lost a few keycaps from an old type M, I wrote them an email asking if I could buy replacements. They asked for my address, which I supplied (I figured they'd need to calculate shipping or something). Never heard from them after that, but a week later I had the keycaps I requested in my mailbox, free of charge.
That type of service earned them a lifetime customer with me.
Windows 3.x and NT 3.x (and 1.3, IIRC) had only a maximize and minimize on the upper right.
If you wanted to close the window, you either used the upper left menu to select "close" or you double clicked the menu.
I really liked that, and to this day my FVWM setup is pretty much the same, although nowdays I right-click to close instead of double click. It drives my friends crazy when they use my machines.
Last time I went to Sun's website, I got the impression that Oracle was pretty much discontinuing any non-RAY workstations. They seem to be only focusing on the large server segment, as far as hardware goes.
There's no point in using GNOME on these (except for RAY setups, of course) since they'll mostly be administered remotely anyway, so I'd imagine that any considerations about Solaris are pretty much moot at this point.
Safari does this on the iPhone. It does not, last time I saw it (which granted, it's been a while) do it on a PC, or presumably a Mac.
You also don't go around touching the screen on your PC to click things, unless you have a specialized setup. Phone users seem to get along just fine regardless.
I know the phone is supposed to supplant the desktop in some idealized world (I'll believe it when I see it), but that doesn't mean the desktop needs to look and act like a phone.
There isn't such a thing as "full chrome" on a phone, or a PC for that matter. Chrome for PC uses a lot of code that the phone doesn't, and vice-versa. The important bits (rendering engine, etc.) will be shared, but the GUI code is going to be different based on its platform.
Most web browsers support other protocols as well, like ftp:// for instance. I remember an IRC plugin for Netscape that used irc://, and it also used to open a terminal window for telnet:// sessions.
I remember using gopher:// on some web browser back when the Alice Cooper fan club had a gopher site, although I'd be surprised if any modern browser supported it.
Granted, pretty much no one uses such things anymore (except maybe ftp:// so I doubt it'll be a big deal, as long as you can still type or paste links starting with http:/// into it.
You could always put alias ls='ls -1' in your .profile, if lists are your thing. There were a lot of older terminals and systems (including DOS) that didn't have scrolling capability, so the grid layout allowed people to see more without having to resort to using more.
I like the grid layout for most stuff, personally (talking in general, not just in ls), but it might just be because I'm used to it.
I do know that iOS is pretty list heavy once you get off the springboard, and the little I've seen of my girlfriend's Android seems to be the same. On desktop systems, lists are a huge waste of horizontal space, especially given our monitors tend to be wider than they are tall, but I know that in older GNOME and Windows Explorer you can change your view to lists, and I wouldn't be surprised if Unity and MacOS had that option as well.
Given your inability to spell, I'd say you're either not one of the people Obama wants to tax (i.e. rich folks) or you're a trust funder who fucked off his education.
Also, I'd like to point out your inability to distinguish federal from state government (change was Obama's thing, this is the California senate), your complete lack of memory (warrantless searches started during the Bush era - so pretty much both parties have shown a willingness for them), and your inability to make sense (Democrats are about personality? WTF?).
How about doing yourself a favor and learn a bit about government before spouting all your inane bullshit?
What he's saying is that the Democrats have to basically do it against the wishes of their base. Sure, they grant stuff to big business, but if they do it too much their own party (registered voters, I mean) turns on them.
The Republicans can do it all day, because they believe that helping big business is the way to go, and their base supports them.
It's really too bad we're stuck with a two party system... a small party that's gung ho for consumer rights would do us a lot of good under a parliamentary system.
Right cause I'm going to uproot my family and leave all of my friends behind to live where exactly?
A nice house overlooking the Mediterranean, perhaps?
And I as a CEO am going to do what exactly with all my employees?
Shit on 'em. You can always get more employees. Look at the unemployment rate!
Because after all they are all going to want to move...
Well, yeah. You'd move too if someone was shitting on you.
How about we stop assuming half the country is full of deadbeats who refuse to get a job?
Seriously, I know personally two families in my town who would classify as "welfare families". Yeah, they suck, and the system shouldn't support them.
I also know a shitload of people who haven't been able to find a job after the meat packing plant shut down. They got unemployment (which they paid into while employed, that's the way unemployment works - it's a type of insurance) and food stamps. The two combined generally don't equal the amount those people were making while employed, and don't have things like health insurance and 401k programs.
You can argue against food stamps (or EBT or whatever), but starving people tend to get food, one way or another. Some of those ways aren't pretty. I'd rather pay for the food stamp program.
Note also that, unless you're independently wealthy or self employed, all the benefits would also go to you, in case your employer decided to send your job to Mexico or India or wherever. It's called a safety net for a reason.