Actually, no, it doesn't. Not without intake of minerals.
Basically, The decision was completely right: some marketing arsehole decided to put on his product a claim that is not technically exactly wrong but largely irrelevant (should people be l to put "asbestos-free" on their product?) And the EU decided that no, you cannot do that, because misinformation is still frowned upon, there.
The fact that you think widgets are those things on the panel shows how far behind OSX is. Hint: the desktop itself is a widget (in non-braindead implementations of the desktop paradigm).
A window list is any object which gives you a listing of open windows/applications. The dock is one, the windows taskbar is one. They can have many shapes and properties. Some are appropriate for many open windows, some are better for the case of few open windows. The separation of applications in activity groups with their own sets of widgets is the only way of covering all use cases (until brain-machine interfaces). In fact, if you do presentations frequently, it is idiotic that you need to adjust power management each time.
Bottom line, OS X is not a good DE. It is OK and extra shiny. But it is in no way the epitome of user interface design. And the WM sucks donkey balls (no always on top, no per-application user-defined rule sets, no per-application transparency, no magnetic borders, no auto-maximisation, no window shading, haphazard window placement, dodgy resizing, absurd placement and size limits on windows). The menu bar on top? would be a good idea it it could deal with a second screen in a not-stupid way. Don't get me started on Finder and the Dock.
About the selection: I call bullshit since at least a year. As for the DB: sure, if the user reactivates the feature, why should he wait for the system to be reindexed? 2 gigs is really small these days.
And the search is much faster than with find, and also uses the content of the files. And it indexes your mails. You may not need it, but it is clearly more powerful than find/locate nonetheless. I, for one, am very happy to use it to find attachment in my tons of emails/files.
this, I honestly don't know: I almost never logout/relaunch applications. firefox I know remembers its window size between launches. The rest, I have never tried.
Exposé is a sad excuse to compensate for a dysfunctional dock. Multiple desktops have been available since forever. Things like "always on top", tiling, proper control of windows placement are still lacking. NeXT had better WM capabilities than OS X (ironically)!
The only thing retarded here is the names given to stuff which already existed. "places" FFS.
I have exposé under linux. It works very well. I never use it. Because a good window list and a non-braindead implementation of multiple desktops obviate the need for it. One recent improvement is KDE's activities: sets of applications themselves distributed on multiple destops, associated to their own collection of panels/widgets/powermanagement policies.
OS X always had dismal window management compared to X Windows circa 1995. It is the part of the UI that systematically drives me nuts whenever I have to use a PC running OS X. The huge screens of macs somewhat mask the defects, but not nearly enough.
Once upon a time, this would have been completely arcane with xressources. Now it is dead easy under KDE (right-click menu bar -> advanced -> special window settings). You can set not only the geometry but also how the application/window interacts with the desktop/taskbar/etc.
Sure... maybe you should care a bit more about what happens with how the money in investment (in particular retirement) funds is spent. At least governments are somewhat open and accountable...
Has Zimbabwe stopped existing? it vanished in a puff of whatever libertarians smoke? This is the fundamental difference between states and corporations. No matter what you do, as a state, as long as you stay independent, people can't repossess you. States do not fail unless they get conquered.
Also, this imbecilic notion that the right thing should not be done on the grounds that some piece of paper written many centuries ago did not specifically specify it needs to die. And that is equally valid for all religions.
I fully agree. What I meant is that the mechanisms for failure are the same in governments and corporations. But yes, governments are frequently better run than corporations -- except for the marketing part. Governments (democratic ones, that is) really suck at marketing.
Ah, but no. You always owned your country. If it was mismanaged it is because you, the shareholder did not perform your role as a watchdog well enough. Hmmm, I like this view of the governement as a corporation: it makes so much sense. Government is mismanaged exactly in the same way companies are mismanaged by egotist CEOs under no oversight by the shareholders...
Repossession would be invasion or the official relinquishing of powers to a corporation. Both of which are illegal.
Oh, it cannot go bankrupt: it can always print money to pay its debt. That this is not always desirable is a completely different issue. Also, it cannot be repossessed.
Now interestingly, it can still be sold or given away. So arguably, the brinkmanship of the GOP during the debt ceiling debate was nothing less than treason: nothing forces a sovereign government to pay its dues, and certainly, nothing forces a government to pay its dues in the most painful way possible for itself.
Government has duties to its people. Making up excuses to get rid of various parts of your duties which you don't like is treason.
The argument goes like this: if the private sector invests in something risky and fails, it is Capitalism and it is Good; when the government does it, itis Socialism, and it is Bad.
All the argument is specious: CEOs invest in their golfing friends' companies, and they don't invest their own money: they invest the shareholder's. Think of the governement as a very large, highly diversify corporation (really, it is not very diversified, it mostly does insurance and has an army; but it also has a whole buch of minor subsidiaries doing a bit of everything). The question is, since the government is this huge corporation which cannot go bankrupt, what should it invest in?
Clearly, high risk, long-term stuff. In a way, like IBM. The only problem with those failed investments (and if you invest in high-risk stuff, you will fail most of the times) is that they clearly were way too application oriented and short-term!
On a more philosophical note, it is wholly reasonable that the governement does the high-risk stuff: it cannot fail. Also, we expect corporations to be profitable every quarter, whereas the government has the luxury of needing only to stay solvant -- which, when you can print your own money is not overly difficult.
Well, PA is still a completely useless piece of crap. It is just a marginally less buggy piece of crap than at its inception. Down the line, it'll become a bug-free piece of crap.
The problem was that you would like various apps to control other app's volume (say, you want skype to lower the volume of amarok when someone is calling [1]). There is a mechanism for apps to communicate: DBUS. They just needed a set of standard interfaces and, for PA's creators' purposes, a tiny daemon + GUI. But nooooo, they had to foist this monstrosity on all of us.
[1] This is of course, stupid. You really want to automatically _pause_ when needed.
I am of the opinion that it is both. All my audio problems always disappeared when I got rid of pulseaudio on my systems.
but t has been improving: it used to by that PA would cause problems within hours, but at the last install, almost a month passed before I realised that it was there...
Linux desktop has not happened because of two historical mishaps:
- Once upon a time, redhat -- officially for licensing reasons, but also in great part because of NIH syndrome -- decided to go with the then amazingly immature GNOME. At the time KDE was clearly better than the proprietary alternatives. Redhat subsequently gave up on desktop linux. Their desktop offering was crap.
- Comes Ubuntu, who, by virtue of actually making the installation always work, even if the user knows nothing, become the dominant linux-on-the-desktop offering. By now, GNOME is quite polished. However Ubuntu is not one of the traditional linux vendors and cannot keep up delivering: with linux you need to have a solid development team, to keep ahead. And in the subsequent releases cannot grow its base. Also, Ubuntu picked GNOME, which was a technological dead-end. Witness Unity/GNOME3 as attempts to get out of the impasse.
This is unfortunate, because had KDE been picked by redhat, back in the day, it would also have been taken up by ubuntu. And linux would have made greater strides on the desktop. Now, KDE is still the most advanced desktop on the planet, bar none, and probably, by virtue of been better and Free and and gratis will eventually become the base of Desktop linux.
Yes I am biased. And I think Miguel de Icaza is the single most responsible individual for the current failure of linux on the desktop.
Except it has become impossible. The price of degrees combined with the erosion of wages for low qualification jobs has made it impossible for prospective students to do what you did. The system is truly broken.
In fact the US has become more of a class society than England. Your odds of moving either up or down in class compared to your parents are now vanishingly small.
Ha. Coddling of the students is a myth. Grade inflation, however, isn't.
The students in high school/college are teenagers with teeming hormones: they naturally tend to compete anyway. The problem is that they will need good grades to enter their university of choice. The parents realise that, and they pressure the school and the professors to give high grades. Which is meaningless, because reality is such that half the students are below average, no matter what you do. You just have a smaller scale on which people are graded.
This would go away if universities were forced to have entrance exams with a pre-established grading scheme -- and I mean real exams, not worthless mcqs... I used to think exams are dumb, and that continuous grading/evaluation is better. I still do, but unfortunately, it is a system way too prone to external pressure.
The Unis need to be forced, because students pay to be educated. This is fucked-up because they become customers, and what corporation wants to fail their customers? And since free education is impossible (that would be socialism -- also the base of both parties might disappear is the population became educated), you need to limit the number of entries in the system.
Now you'll tell me that this will make teachers "teach the test". But that is not necessarily the case: this depends on the nature of the test. Some tests can be designed that really test understanding. And "teaching the test" really becomes just "teaching".
See, cosmological models got updated/revised/discovered by fucking cosmologists (or their intellectual ancestors), disease models by biologists, aether was disproved by physicists.
Note how it was those people's job to think about the question (or at least their occupation when they were otherwise idle noblemen/clergymen...)
Climate models and climate study are the realm of climatologists, who are devoting their lives to the question. It takes a formidable ego to think you are going to do better -- unless you become one yourself. But then, for the retarded deniers, your opinion becomes suspect as you have been tainted by knowledge... So if you care, go ahead, get a PhD in climatology, and study the question: you might come up with some alternative model/understanding.
If you are not going to do that, you might as well trust the guys. The alternative means trusting some crackpot who is not interested enough to spend his life on the question, but enough to generate a media circus.
It is not forbidden. Just spectacularly arrogant and in 99.9999% of cases a waste of time, money and effort.
Be sceptical, sure. But thinking you are right and the experts are wrong about something which is not your area of expertise (and is theirs, and they all agree) is not being a sceptic, it is being an idiot.
uhh, Earth does become a white Earth at semi-regular intervals. In fact, if you were to sample the climate at incredibly long intervals, you would find that this planet is not so hospitable.
So we ought to worry very much about making it worse...
Slashdot Mirror
yes it is, and since coming to North America, I have ben shocked time and time again by what advertisers are allowed to claim around here.
You guys need to get your proffessional liers back in line.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Not without intake of minerals.
Basically, The decision was completely right: some marketing arsehole decided to put on his product a claim that is not technically exactly wrong but largely irrelevant (should people be l to put "asbestos-free" on their product?) And the EU decided that no, you cannot do that, because misinformation is still frowned upon, there.
The fact that you think widgets are those things on the panel shows how far behind OSX is. Hint: the desktop itself is a widget (in non-braindead implementations of the desktop paradigm).
A window list is any object which gives you a listing of open windows/applications. The dock is one, the windows taskbar is one. They can have many shapes and properties. Some are appropriate for many open windows, some are better for the case of few open windows. The separation of applications in activity groups with their own sets of widgets is the only way of covering all use cases (until brain-machine interfaces). In fact, if you do presentations frequently, it is idiotic that you need to adjust power management each time.
Bottom line, OS X is not a good DE. It is OK and extra shiny. But it is in no way the epitome of user interface design. And the WM sucks donkey balls (no always on top, no per-application user-defined rule sets, no per-application transparency, no magnetic borders, no auto-maximisation, no window shading, haphazard window placement, dodgy resizing, absurd placement and size limits on windows). The menu bar on top? would be a good idea it it could deal with a second screen in a not-stupid way. Don't get me started on Finder and the Dock.
About the selection: I call bullshit since at least a year. As for the DB: sure, if the user reactivates the feature, why should he wait for the system to be reindexed? 2 gigs is really small these days.
And the search is much faster than with find, and also uses the content of the files. And it indexes your mails. You may not need it, but it is clearly more powerful than find/locate nonetheless. I, for one, am very happy to use it to find attachment in my tons of emails/files.
this, I honestly don't know: I almost never logout/relaunch applications. firefox I know remembers its window size between launches. The rest, I have never tried.
Give credit where credit is due. Pulseaudio was an abomination foisted upon us by Ubuntu, and is therefore more GNOME's fault than KDE's...
And since 4.7 nepomuk has actually been working well for me (before that, there had been bouts of it working, but never very reliably)
Yes, that also. kwin is perhaps the most underrated part of KDE: it is one of the very best WM around, even if you don't use the desktop.
Exposé is a sad excuse to compensate for a dysfunctional dock. Multiple desktops have been available since forever. Things like "always on top", tiling, proper control of windows placement are still lacking. NeXT had better WM capabilities than OS X (ironically)!
The only thing retarded here is the names given to stuff which already existed. "places" FFS.
I have exposé under linux. It works very well. I never use it. Because a good window list and a non-braindead implementation of multiple desktops obviate the need for it. One recent improvement is KDE's activities: sets of applications themselves distributed on multiple destops, associated to their own collection of panels/widgets/powermanagement policies.
OS X always had dismal window management compared to X Windows circa 1995. It is the part of the UI that systematically drives me nuts whenever I have to use a PC running OS X. The huge screens of macs somewhat mask the defects, but not nearly enough.
Once upon a time, this would have been completely arcane with xressources. Now it is dead easy under KDE (right-click menu bar -> advanced -> special window settings). You can set not only the geometry but also how the application/window interacts with the desktop/taskbar/etc.
But hey. Keep thinking the past was better...
No, the land was given in perpetuity to the UN. However, the US federal and state laws apply, as per to the agreement under which the land was given.
The US could take it back, but it would be equivalent to declaring war on the entire planet at once, which would be pointless.
Sure... maybe you should care a bit more about what happens with how the money in investment (in particular retirement) funds is spent. At least governments are somewhat open and accountable...
Has Zimbabwe stopped existing? it vanished in a puff of whatever libertarians smoke? This is the fundamental difference between states and corporations. No matter what you do, as a state, as long as you stay independent, people can't repossess you. States do not fail unless they get conquered.
Also, this imbecilic notion that the right thing should not be done on the grounds that some piece of paper written many centuries ago did not specifically specify it needs to die. And that is equally valid for all religions.
No. simply sovereign. A government fails only when it abdicates/is conquered/is overthrown.
Thus it may take risks a corporation cannot.
I fully agree. What I meant is that the mechanisms for failure are the same in governments and corporations. But yes, governments are frequently better run than corporations -- except for the marketing part. Governments (democratic ones, that is) really suck at marketing.
Ah, but no. You always owned your country. If it was mismanaged it is because you, the shareholder did not perform your role as a watchdog well enough. Hmmm, I like this view of the governement as a corporation: it makes so much sense. Government is mismanaged exactly in the same way companies are mismanaged by egotist CEOs under no oversight by the shareholders...
Repossession would be invasion or the official relinquishing of powers to a corporation. Both of which are illegal.
Oh, it cannot go bankrupt: it can always print money to pay its debt. That this is not always desirable is a completely different issue. Also, it cannot be repossessed.
Now interestingly, it can still be sold or given away. So arguably, the brinkmanship of the GOP during the debt ceiling debate was nothing less than treason: nothing forces a sovereign government to pay its dues, and certainly, nothing forces a government to pay its dues in the most painful way possible for itself.
Government has duties to its people. Making up excuses to get rid of various parts of your duties which you don't like is treason.
The argument goes like this: if the private sector invests in something risky and fails, it is Capitalism and it is Good; when the government does it, itis Socialism, and it is Bad.
All the argument is specious: CEOs invest in their golfing friends' companies, and they don't invest their own money: they invest the shareholder's. Think of the governement as a very large, highly diversify corporation (really, it is not very diversified, it mostly does insurance and has an army; but it also has a whole buch of minor subsidiaries doing a bit of everything). The question is, since the government is this huge corporation which cannot go bankrupt, what should it invest in?
Clearly, high risk, long-term stuff. In a way, like IBM. The only problem with those failed investments (and if you invest in high-risk stuff, you will fail most of the times) is that they clearly were way too application oriented and short-term!
On a more philosophical note, it is wholly reasonable that the governement does the high-risk stuff: it cannot fail. Also, we expect corporations to be profitable every quarter, whereas the government has the luxury of needing only to stay solvant -- which, when you can print your own money is not overly difficult.
Well, PA is still a completely useless piece of crap. It is just a marginally less buggy piece of crap than at its inception. Down the line, it'll become a bug-free piece of crap.
The problem was that you would like various apps to control other app's volume (say, you want skype to lower the volume of amarok when someone is calling [1]). There is a mechanism for apps to communicate: DBUS. They just needed a set of standard interfaces and, for PA's creators' purposes, a tiny daemon + GUI. But nooooo, they had to foist this monstrosity on all of us.
[1] This is of course, stupid. You really want to automatically _pause_ when needed.
I am of the opinion that it is both. All my audio problems always disappeared when I got rid of pulseaudio on my systems.
but t has been improving: it used to by that PA would cause problems within hours, but at the last install, almost a month passed before I realised that it was there...
Linux desktop has not happened because of two historical mishaps:
- Once upon a time, redhat -- officially for licensing reasons, but also in great part because of NIH syndrome -- decided to go with the then amazingly immature GNOME. At the time KDE was clearly better than the proprietary alternatives. Redhat subsequently gave up on desktop linux. Their desktop offering was crap.
- Comes Ubuntu, who, by virtue of actually making the installation always work, even if the user knows nothing, become the dominant linux-on-the-desktop offering. By now, GNOME is quite polished. However Ubuntu is not one of the traditional linux vendors and cannot keep up delivering: with linux you need to have a solid development team, to keep ahead. And in the subsequent releases cannot grow its base. Also, Ubuntu picked GNOME, which was a technological dead-end. Witness Unity/GNOME3 as attempts to get out of the impasse.
This is unfortunate, because had KDE been picked by redhat, back in the day, it would also have been taken up by ubuntu. And linux would have made greater strides on the desktop. Now, KDE is still the most advanced desktop on the planet, bar none, and probably, by virtue of been better and Free and and gratis will eventually become the base of Desktop linux.
Yes I am biased. And I think Miguel de Icaza is the single most responsible individual for the current failure of linux on the desktop.
Except it has become impossible. The price of degrees combined with the erosion of wages for low qualification jobs has made it impossible for prospective students to do what you did. The system is truly broken.
In fact the US has become more of a class society than England. Your odds of moving either up or down in class compared to your parents are now vanishingly small.
Ha. Coddling of the students is a myth. Grade inflation, however, isn't.
The students in high school/college are teenagers with teeming hormones: they naturally tend to compete anyway. The problem is that they will need good grades to enter their university of choice. The parents realise that, and they pressure the school and the professors to give high grades. Which is meaningless, because reality is such that half the students are below average, no matter what you do. You just have a smaller scale on which people are graded.
This would go away if universities were forced to have entrance exams with a pre-established grading scheme -- and I mean real exams, not worthless mcqs... I used to think exams are dumb, and that continuous grading/evaluation is better. I still do, but unfortunately, it is a system way too prone to external pressure.
The Unis need to be forced, because students pay to be educated. This is fucked-up because they become customers, and what corporation wants to fail their customers? And since free education is impossible (that would be socialism -- also the base of both parties might disappear is the population became educated), you need to limit the number of entries in the system.
Now you'll tell me that this will make teachers "teach the test". But that is not necessarily the case: this depends on the nature of the test. Some tests can be designed that really test understanding. And "teaching the test" really becomes just "teaching".
Wha..?
See, cosmological models got updated/revised/discovered by fucking cosmologists (or their intellectual ancestors), disease models by biologists, aether was disproved by physicists.
Note how it was those people's job to think about the question (or at least their occupation when they were otherwise idle noblemen/clergymen...)
Climate models and climate study are the realm of climatologists, who are devoting their lives to the question. It takes a formidable ego to think you are going to do better -- unless you become one yourself. But then, for the retarded deniers, your opinion becomes suspect as you have been tainted by knowledge... So if you care, go ahead, get a PhD in climatology, and study the question: you might come up with some alternative model/understanding.
If you are not going to do that, you might as well trust the guys. The alternative means trusting some crackpot who is not interested enough to spend his life on the question, but enough to generate a media circus.
It is not forbidden. Just spectacularly arrogant and in 99.9999% of cases a waste of time, money and effort.
Be sceptical, sure. But thinking you are right and the experts are wrong about something which is not your area of expertise (and is theirs, and they all agree) is not being a sceptic, it is being an idiot.
uhh, Earth does become a white Earth at semi-regular intervals. In fact, if you were to sample the climate at incredibly long intervals, you would find that this planet is not so hospitable.
So we ought to worry very much about making it worse...