EVERYONE that has replied to me seems to consider that they're not using their computer when they're not there. If your pc is doing stuff, you don't have to be there for it to qualify as "usage time"
In another note, how many users do you think do backups and maintenance? For most of home users, the increase in data integrity security isn't worth the extra degree of complexity, because for most people, home pc usage isn't mission critical.
Finally, those tasks don't normally take the 8 hour average that is called "night". If you're so good at scripting, I'm sure you can put a sudo shutdown -h right there at the end of the script, after everything else has finished. Some programs even offer a "shut down pc when done" checkbox.
You should REALLY turn off your pc when you're not using it. Saving 30 seconds for whole hours of needless power consumption is irresponsible for the environment. Tree-hugging aside, just because you don't need to do it, it's very important for people who do need to turn off their computers, such as those who use laptops.
Consider this: Someone votes in a booth using an electronic machine, which prints out their vote, which the voter themselves put in a sealed envelope and throw into a locked poll. The voter can verify that what he voted for is what the machine printed.
After the election day ends, the machine announces a sort of temporary result.
Then, a representative of the justice system, and representatives of all parties, and a member of the public (with a role similar to jury duty) all verify that the number of votes correspond to the number of people registered to have voted in that place. If there is a difference between the electronic and the paper-trail result, the latter overrides the former. The representatives can also count as invalid all envelopes that contain an irregular number of printouts, or one that has any identify marks (such as writing, scratching, tears or whatever)
Do some parenting instead of some monitoring
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 1
If your kids are old enough to want to have an email address, it means that their friends have email addresses. And if their friends have email addresses, then your kids will probably get too, whether you are aware of it or not. If you get them a baby proofed address they'll end up not using it, and get a "real" mail address like gmail, yahoo, hotmail, or whatever kids use these days (when I've told them to get off my lawn). Make sure that your children are aware of the dangers on the internet. Make sure your children understand basic concepts like privacy and security. They're going to use internet on their own anyway, in the same way their peers do, whether you're like it or not. Don't stop them or monitor them, just teach them to do it the right way. Plus, if your kids are in their teens, or near that age, you don't really wanna break their trust and their feelings of independence by logging into their account and monitoring their activity. You want to strenghten their independence and you want them to respect you for trusting them. That way, it's gonna be easier for them to do what you tell them to do. Parenting is not about monitoring whether your children are safe when you're not around, it's about teaching them to BE safe when you're not around. Of course, that doesn't make you any less worried, but you can choose to train them to be adults, or you can choose to baby-proof them. Just remember that you're gonna worry either way, but you can also make them more responsible in the process.
Actually, no.
Species is a set of animals that interbreed and create fertile offspring. In terms of process, I don't see how that's any different to breeding different breeds of dogs the old fashioned way. In terms of purpose, instead of targeting a set of genotype that creates a desired phenotype, they're just targeting for a genotype that doesn't exist anymore.
I agree. It seems the US did a really peachy job about liberating the innocent free and democratic Kuwait government from "dem eeeevil Iraqis" back in the first Gulf war.
The sad thing is that while the rest of the world doesn't buy the "We liberate nations" propaganda, there is a large number of Americans who do.
How about Boa Constructor? I've worked it on Linux, but the screenshots on the project's site on sourceforge are from windows, so I'm guessing it's cross platform.
Pasted from the Ubuntu add/remove description
RAD tool for Python and WxWindows application
Boa-constructor is an IDE oriented towards creating cross-platform applications built on top of the Python language and the WxWindows GUI toolkit.
It features:
* visual wxWindows frame design,
* object inspector and explorer,
* syntax highlighting editor with code completion, call tips and code browsing for Python code,
* syntax highlighting editor for C, C++, HTML, XML, config files (INI style),
* documentation generation,
* an integrated Python debugger,
* integrated help,
* a Python Shell,
* an explorer able to browse, open/edit, inspect and interact with various data sources including files, CVS, Zope, FTP, DAV and SSH,
* an UML view generator.
Homepage: http://boa-constructor.sourceforge.net/
This application is provided by the Ubuntu community.
well, in all seriousness, the mininum refresh rate that cannot be distinguished from continuous moving image is different from person to person. Hence why some people find the 60 Hz refresh rate setting on their display unbearable and others don't have a problem. But for some (albeit very few) people even the 60Hz (at best) Hz that is the frequency the filament flickers are perceptible, and therefore annoying.
The big difference is that the UN is an international organisation, while the US are (supposedly) just another country. Therefore the US' opinion on the borders of the countries shouldn't be different from the UN's. Otherwise, the US is just barging in on other countries affairs. But that's not a big surprise after all.
To clarify: Judging whether a territory is contested is a political decision. In your example, the UN may say that Normandy is French, but the CIA maps might say otherwise.
They can (and have) alter the borders of countries. For example, they can place a "contested" territory according to their whim and not according to the UN.
Provide a lot of sources. Always teach both sides of the argument. Prefer primary sources than commented material and leave critical analysis to yourself / your students.
Spend sometime understanding the argumentative process and teach / learn how to identify bad arguments. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ I only know one thing: That I know nothing. (brought to you by Socrates
You have two ears and one mouth. Listen twice, speak once
The basic meaning is to teach / learn that no matter how much you know and you've studied, you should always treat yourself as if you know nothing. In a sense, you always do.
Have you heard of civil disobedience? If you don't believe a law is right, you just don't obey it, but you bear the full extent of the consequences of your actions. The theory is that your disobedience, if justified, will potentially lead other people to follow your example eventually either creating a political trend that can no longer be ignored, or by creating a status quo which renders the law de facto obsolete. Sponsored by Ghandi and friends.
----
Left Wing: Poor people stealing from the rich
Right Wing: Rich people stealing from the poor
You're telling me that this is then a priority issue. When the right of property conflicts with social cohesion or civil rights, conservatives prefer the former.
Imo, what you're saying is the same as what I'm saying, you're just putting corporations under the umbrella of property rights. On the contrary, imo social cohesion and civil rights are more important than property rights when a conflict arises.
-------
Left wing: The poor mooching off of the rich
Right wing: The rich mooching off of the poor
It's also amazing how conservatives claim to strive for less state control by not regulating the market and by not taxing the rich and powerful, but they sure don't have a problem regulating the lives of the many by imposing "security measures" and by ignoring human rights in the name of national security.
Isn't it weird? Conservatives don't have a problem with the government invading their personal lives, but they DO have a problem with the government invading the corporations' lives.
In the free market state you Americans idolize, corporations and citizens should have the same treatment under the eye of the law. No more, no less.
It's not a question of what a power user can do it's a question of the default options for the average joe. and the defaults just plain suck! If you care to read a bit below you will say that I clarify my view that no file should be executable if a user hasn't deliberately made it so.
Plus a complementary comparison of security versus usability for the *nix vs windows privileges. http://www.freeos.com/articles/3127/ http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Understanding-Windows-NTFS-Permissions.html
You see here that what is under the hood of a Windows system is actually quite complex. Why the defaults for file execution are so crappy is beyond me.
I kinda was, in a semi-humorous kind of way.
Having your credit card stolen hampers your everyday life or productivity much more than an annoying IE popup.
Anyway, I don't think that an equivalent of chmod +x for windows with a simple GUI (e.g. right click > allow execution of file) is not something that majorly hampers usability.
What I'm saying is, that no file should be executable if the users haven't at least once explicitly made it so. Especially in the case of files downloaded off teh internets.
now if only there a way for a file to be executable, but not have the privileges to be executed...
I have an innovative idea. How about every file has some owners who have (or don't have) the ability to read, write or execute it...
That way, it's difficult for you to accidentally execute a file you downloaded from the internet, because you have to make it executable yourself. I'm so smart!
Another similar choice would be Linux from Scratch.
Choose whichever one you like.
They can be quite a hassle to set up, but the reward is that you have a completely customized system, with complete control on what's installed.
Slashdot Mirror
home alone is a pretty nifty idea. Especially if you're a kid and it's around Christmas.
Oh, I'm with you on the whole "environmentalists are obnoxious" thing. But just because they're obnoxious, doesn't make them wrong...
EVERYONE that has replied to me seems to consider that they're not using their computer when they're not there. If your pc is doing stuff, you don't have to be there for it to qualify as "usage time"
In another note, how many users do you think do backups and maintenance? For most of home users, the increase in data integrity security isn't worth the extra degree of complexity, because for most people, home pc usage isn't mission critical.
Finally, those tasks don't normally take the 8 hour average that is called "night". If you're so good at scripting, I'm sure you can put a sudo shutdown -h right there at the end of the script, after everything else has finished. Some programs even offer a "shut down pc when done" checkbox.
You should REALLY turn off your pc when you're not using it. Saving 30 seconds for whole hours of needless power consumption is irresponsible for the environment. Tree-hugging aside, just because you don't need to do it, it's very important for people who do need to turn off their computers, such as those who use laptops.
Consider this: Someone votes in a booth using an electronic machine, which prints out their vote, which the voter themselves put in a sealed envelope and throw into a locked poll. The voter can verify that what he voted for is what the machine printed.
After the election day ends, the machine announces a sort of temporary result. Then, a representative of the justice system, and representatives of all parties, and a member of the public (with a role similar to jury duty) all verify that the number of votes correspond to the number of people registered to have voted in that place. If there is a difference between the electronic and the paper-trail result, the latter overrides the former. The representatives can also count as invalid all envelopes that contain an irregular number of printouts, or one that has any identify marks (such as writing, scratching, tears or whatever)
If your kids are old enough to want to have an email address, it means that their friends have email addresses. And if their friends have email addresses, then your kids will probably get too, whether you are aware of it or not. If you get them a baby proofed address they'll end up not using it, and get a "real" mail address like gmail, yahoo, hotmail, or whatever kids use these days (when I've told them to get off my lawn). Make sure that your children are aware of the dangers on the internet. Make sure your children understand basic concepts like privacy and security. They're going to use internet on their own anyway, in the same way their peers do, whether you're like it or not. Don't stop them or monitor them, just teach them to do it the right way. Plus, if your kids are in their teens, or near that age, you don't really wanna break their trust and their feelings of independence by logging into their account and monitoring their activity. You want to strenghten their independence and you want them to respect you for trusting them. That way, it's gonna be easier for them to do what you tell them to do. Parenting is not about monitoring whether your children are safe when you're not around, it's about teaching them to BE safe when you're not around. Of course, that doesn't make you any less worried, but you can choose to train them to be adults, or you can choose to baby-proof them. Just remember that you're gonna worry either way, but you can also make them more responsible in the process.
Actually, no. Species is a set of animals that interbreed and create fertile offspring. In terms of process, I don't see how that's any different to breeding different breeds of dogs the old fashioned way. In terms of purpose, instead of targeting a set of genotype that creates a desired phenotype, they're just targeting for a genotype that doesn't exist anymore.
I agree. It seems the US did a really peachy job about liberating the innocent free and democratic Kuwait government from "dem eeeevil Iraqis" back in the first Gulf war. The sad thing is that while the rest of the world doesn't buy the "We liberate nations" propaganda, there is a large number of Americans who do.
How about Boa Constructor? I've worked it on Linux, but the screenshots on the project's site on sourceforge are from windows, so I'm guessing it's cross platform.
Pasted from the Ubuntu add/remove description
RAD tool for Python and WxWindows application Boa-constructor is an IDE oriented towards creating cross-platform applications built on top of the Python language and the WxWindows GUI toolkit. It features: * visual wxWindows frame design, * object inspector and explorer, * syntax highlighting editor with code completion, call tips and code browsing for Python code, * syntax highlighting editor for C, C++, HTML, XML, config files (INI style), * documentation generation, * an integrated Python debugger, * integrated help, * a Python Shell, * an explorer able to browse, open/edit, inspect and interact with various data sources including files, CVS, Zope, FTP, DAV and SSH, * an UML view generator. Homepage: http://boa-constructor.sourceforge.net/ This application is provided by the Ubuntu community.
well, in all seriousness, the mininum refresh rate that cannot be distinguished from continuous moving image is different from person to person. Hence why some people find the 60 Hz refresh rate setting on their display unbearable and others don't have a problem. But for some (albeit very few) people even the 60Hz (at best) Hz that is the frequency the filament flickers are perceptible, and therefore annoying.
the filament DOES dim. Experiment: with your palm open, put your fingers in front of your eyes and waive your hand. Look at the light. See?
The big difference is that the UN is an international organisation, while the US are (supposedly) just another country. Therefore the US' opinion on the borders of the countries shouldn't be different from the UN's. Otherwise, the US is just barging in on other countries affairs. But that's not a big surprise after all.
To clarify: Judging whether a territory is contested is a political decision. In your example, the UN may say that Normandy is French, but the CIA maps might say otherwise.
They can (and have) alter the borders of countries. For example, they can place a "contested" territory according to their whim and not according to the UN.
Provide a lot of sources. Always teach both sides of the argument. Prefer primary sources than commented material and leave critical analysis to yourself / your students.
Spend sometime understanding the argumentative process and teach / learn how to identify bad arguments. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
I only know one thing: That I know nothing. (brought to you by Socrates
You have two ears and one mouth. Listen twice, speak once
The basic meaning is to teach / learn that no matter how much you know and you've studied, you should always treat yourself as if you know nothing. In a sense, you always do.
what about my large multinational corporation which suffers from imaginary loss of profits, you insensitive clod!
Have you heard of civil disobedience? If you don't believe a law is right, you just don't obey it, but you bear the full extent of the consequences of your actions. The theory is that your disobedience, if justified, will potentially lead other people to follow your example eventually either creating a political trend that can no longer be ignored, or by creating a status quo which renders the law de facto obsolete. Sponsored by Ghandi and friends.
----
Left Wing: Poor people stealing from the rich
Right Wing: Rich people stealing from the poor
You're telling me that this is then a priority issue. When the right of property conflicts with social cohesion or civil rights, conservatives prefer the former.
Imo, what you're saying is the same as what I'm saying, you're just putting corporations under the umbrella of property rights. On the contrary, imo social cohesion and civil rights are more important than property rights when a conflict arises.
-------
Left wing: The poor mooching off of the rich
Right wing: The rich mooching off of the poor
It's also amazing how conservatives claim to strive for less state control by not regulating the market and by not taxing the rich and powerful, but they sure don't have a problem regulating the lives of the many by imposing "security measures" and by ignoring human rights in the name of national security. Isn't it weird? Conservatives don't have a problem with the government invading their personal lives, but they DO have a problem with the government invading the corporations' lives. In the free market state you Americans idolize, corporations and citizens should have the same treatment under the eye of the law. No more, no less.
It's not a question of what a power user can do it's a question of the default options for the average joe. and the defaults just plain suck! If you care to read a bit below you will say that I clarify my view that no file should be executable if a user hasn't deliberately made it so. Plus a complementary comparison of security versus usability for the *nix vs windows privileges.
http://www.freeos.com/articles/3127/
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Understanding-Windows-NTFS-Permissions.html
You see here that what is under the hood of a Windows system is actually quite complex. Why the defaults for file execution are so crappy is beyond me.
I kinda was, in a semi-humorous kind of way. Having your credit card stolen hampers your everyday life or productivity much more than an annoying IE popup. Anyway, I don't think that an equivalent of chmod +x for windows with a simple GUI (e.g. right click > allow execution of file) is not something that majorly hampers usability. What I'm saying is, that no file should be executable if the users haven't at least once explicitly made it so. Especially in the case of files downloaded off teh internets.
Wait, isn't lax security a major usability problem waiting to happen?
now if only there a way for a file to be executable, but not have the privileges to be executed... I have an innovative idea. How about every file has some owners who have (or don't have) the ability to read, write or execute it... That way, it's difficult for you to accidentally execute a file you downloaded from the internet, because you have to make it executable yourself. I'm so smart!
Another similar choice would be Linux from Scratch. Choose whichever one you like. They can be quite a hassle to set up, but the reward is that you have a completely customized system, with complete control on what's installed.