Seems like it's just me but I don't like the way KDE orders the tasks when there's more than one row- from top to bottom, then only left to right.
I prefer the windows style - left to right, then top to bottom.
With MS Window's style when I close/remove a task, the tasks to the right do not all get shuffled vertically, only the leftmost and rightmost tasks are affected.
With KDE, ALL tasks to the right of the removed tasks end up on a diffent row. IMO that's bad useability.
So I submitted this as a feature request, but the dev didn't like the suggested behaviour.
There are also regulations on how many hours a worker may be made to work - go see for yourself.
And in _practice_ the Gov and courts do not look kindly on companies that terminate employees if the company is not _losing_ money. Not sure about the actual laws involved but the courts appear to favour workers (my father was a GM of a company, and he'd recommend companies never going to labour court if possible - you'd usually lose, my other bosses in Malaysian companies were of similar opinion too).
In the US, it appears common that on the whim of some highly paid C?O, 10-20% of staff can get laid off, not because the company is losing money or the workers and middle management did anything really wrong, but because the shareholders demand an X% increase in profitability per quarter, or some C?O wanted to get a big bonus.
Sure the wages here are much lower than the US (factory workers can get about USD180/month in big companies), but so are the living costs. I doubt working conditions are much worse - it just depends on which company you work for and which area. For factory workers for electronic widget manufacturers conditions are typically quite good - housing and transport is provided, even subsidized food at cafetarias - USD0.25 for curry chicken and rice.
Typically even in the city, USD1 to USD1.2 buys you an "all you can eat" vegetarian meal (indian food), or a plate of rice, vegetables and chicken/fish.
Sure maybe if you are a plantation worker in some remote plantation life could be harsh. Even so, I doubt that's true for plantations run by most listed companies.
For the white collar workers: unlike in the USA, it is not as common for companies to require that they own all your ideas past+present+future when you join them. That's what I call real slavery - the company wants to own your _thoughts_ and _ideas_.
Also I doubt it'd be easy to convince our British style courts that a worker cannot work in the same industry he is skilled and trained in just for "non-compete" reasons.
Baker not being able to work for another bakery? Programmer not being able to work for another software company? Try requiring a lawyer who leaves a law firm to not practise law at another law firm...
Face it. Most countries just are much cheaper, and many don't have much worse working conditions (some might even be better in some ways).
I used the regmon and filemon from sysinternal's website and allowed the necessary access to the various keys/files to a "gamers" group, and voila, I can run Counterstrike as a normal user (not even power user) that's a member of the gamers group.
As for Doom3, I'm not sure why you have a problem - I could run it as a normal user. I had more problems with the video driver - the latest Nvidia driver at that time screwed things up, so I had to pick something more recent than my existing, but not quite the latest. The one from Microsoft's Windows Update was crappy too. I don't have that recent video hardware, but I'm not sure why they would mess about with the driver so much so that it makes a GF4Ti work so much worse - like a slideshow...
"what makes 55mph the best limit? Why not 40, or 25, or 10?"
I don't know the exact values for the best limit, but here's what I think people should consider:
1) Humans have limited lifespans.
2) Most keep a 24 hour cycle, with approx 16 hours awake. And spend maybe 1.5-2 hours of that on other self-maintenance (and other overheads) - grooming, cleaning, eating etc.
Now if you set a speed limit too low, you'd end up with humans spending lots of time travelling from A to B, and typically back from B to A.
If a commute is 1 hour from A to B and 1 hour back, that's two hours. And that's about 12% of your waking life gone. If by setting a stupid speed limit you increase the commute to 4 hours, that's 12.5% _more_ of your waking life gone.
That's like reducing the average life expectancy of everyone by about 10 years more.
Remember you are doing this for practically ALL the drivers - if just one driver slows down significantly, almost all drivers have to slow down.
That is a LOT of man-years gone
While driving fast kills the unlucky and the careless/ignorant/stupid, driving way too slow kills the unlucky, the careless/ignorant/stupid (by effectively creating a road obstruction/obstacle) AND also reduces the effective lifespan of almost everyone else on the same road.
I'm not saying we should all drive fast (set it too fast and some crash and everyone ends up moving really slowly). But I'm saying there really is such a thing as too slow. Most people have other things they want to do with their lives than spending it on the same road everyday.
Feel free to disagree - maybe most people would/do enjoy driving at a very slow pace to and fro work every working day.
". You can be 60 feet away from the car in front of you going 100 miles an hour and still stop in time."
This is true unless the car in front of you hits a stationary object (e.g. some wall) and slows down extremely fast.
You (as a driver) just have to hope stuff like that rarely happens and the risk*impact is worth it, otherwise you'd leave a much greater gap between the cars.
That said apparently some cars have very good occupant survivability for typical 60 mph crashes.
Shee-it... That is not supposed to be able to happen, _ever_. If the doors are not closed the elevator _must_NEVER_ be able to move. There should be like tons of safeguards.
I wonder how all that stuff failed... Poor guy. And the other people in the lift...
You didn't even bother to properly read the 1st link I gave. If you did you would have seen:
"Further categorization of diets showed that, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans. There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined."
The 2nd link I gave claims there were blood pressure benefits (amongst other benefits).
And there are other links like the German study on vegetarians which appears to deal with mortality as a whole, it concludes:
"Both the duration of vegetarianism and the vegetarian status (strict versus moderate) showed a moderate effect on all cause and cancer mortality. A longer duration of vegetarianism (> or = 20 years) was associated with a lower risk, pointing to a real protective effect of this lifestyle. A lower risk of death among moderate vegetarians suggests that sound nutritional planning may be more important than absolute avoidance of meat."
See the last sentence.
I give more weight to studies done by the "Division of Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Centre, Heidelberg." and "Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, United Kingdom. key@icrf.icnet.uk" than stuff some of these kooky websites[1] on nutrition claim.
[1] There are many of these around, and the USDA views on nutrition is just as useless and even more suspect - given it's not the FDA, but the Dept of _Agriculture_. Go figure.
Uh, the first link I gave doesn't support your claim. Just read the excerpt I posted. Fish and lacto-ovo vegetarians do 34% better than regular meat eaters. Whereas vegans "only" do 26% better. (of course that's only for heart disease - the 2nd link is wrt blood pressure).
I regard your second link as a poor quality source. Lots of stating of various facts, glued together with opinion. There is a gap between the various facts given and the author's claim "But, I believe these advantages are in spite of the fish, rather than because of the fish".
Whereas, the studies I cite have the mortality and health indications directly in the results.
The first link you gave is better. It's a shame that the seas are so contaminated and I don't dispute that. So I suppose in modern times, eating lots of fish isn't such a good idea anymore.
That said there was another study in Germany that showed nonstrict vegetarians did better than strict vegetarians.
e.g. "A lower risk of death among moderate vegetarians suggests that sound nutritional planning may be more important than absolute avoidance of meat."
So far the evidence seems that less meat is good, but total avoidance of meat (strict vegetarianism) isn't as healthy.
It seems there's no shield between the occupant and the sides of the stationary tube.
If that is true there could be risks if stuff (like clothing) gets caught at the wrong places... Not very high I suppose - it's just like using an escalator - if you careless/stupid enough to get something caught you better hope it rips rather than you rip...
"in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans"
Conclusion: allowing/having fish (and/or eggs) in your diet is healthier than being a strict vegetarian or vegan.
Sure you can claim the vegans weren't eating the best vegan food which may be true. But it's a lot easier to just eat eggs/fish from time to time instead of strictly avoiding them.
There are many other studies that fish is good for humans : e.g. for brains of growing children/for pregnant women - good for the babies.
My point remains: eating fish is a good thing for humans. Popular claims that humans are supposed to vegetarians are misguided. You can survive on a vegetarian diet, but you are more likely to thrive if you have some fish. Whereas stuff like red meat is more likely to kill you prematurely.
You may choose to refrain from eating fish for other reasons, but it's good for health (unless it's contaminated with mercury, other heavy metals or PCBs:( ).
p.s. I'm a tad surprised the lacto/ovo vegetarians did so well. Good news to me, I'm an omnivore that likes eggs and fish. Also a tad surprised about freshwater fish being good (always thought open-water sea fish is much better - could be true here - given the polluted rivers in my country, and the probably poor regulation of fish farms ).
AFAIK whilst eating vegetables is good for humans, eating fish is _very_ good for humans. Whilst humans can survive on vegetables, it is easier to _thrive_ if you add fish to your diet.
There are plenty of scientific studies proving that.
People in countries with a high rate of fish consumption live longer and healthier for longer.
Of course the sad thing is the fishing industry is screwed up and the seas aren't getting much cleaner.
I've been looking at code from coders that lived in a 1st world country and earned 1st world pay. And it really isn't that good... (BTW you're close enough about the zero documentation bit...)
It seems there are very few good programmers. If you're going to get crap anyway, better to pay 1/10th for it:).
Not saying that I'm a good programmer. Far from it. But heh, even I can do better than the crap I saw.
With just the fixes/rearchitecting of some recent code, I might have justified most (if not all) of my entire _year's_ salary already;).
In the original teams defense: The stuff worked well enough in the 90s when the loads were lower.
With requirements at a typical business level, you could have X totally different systems that meet them (and most better given hindsight). And often that level is as much as you're going to get when the original team has left.
Anyway recreating requirements at a detailed technical level could be a waste of time - because some module could be required to do something stupid by another module. Once you fix things all round, this requirement will be thrown out.
At one of my workplaces I made major changes in behaviour of some modules - e.g. instead of N^2 it's just N. And some things I just threw out because they were redundant.
I suppose, you could rewrite the requirements (after figuring things out), and then rewrite the code. But that's quite different from _getting_ the requirements.
I didn't say it happens frequently. <a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-529826.ht ml?legacy=zdnn">http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22 -529826.html?legacy=zdnn</a>
Of course if you are tapping your own country's links then it's often easier - just do it on land near/at the telcos;). If you are tapping links of other countries then you may have to resort to this.
If I were the NSA, I'd get someone to tap Google's pipe... The NSA can't officially get involved directly of course.
The guy's study is not really about whether there's global warming or not. The study claims that there is not really much consensus amongst the 1000 papers, unlike what Oreskes's study claims.
"You know exactly where the cut is, and when it happened."
But you don't necessarily know which vessel caused the cut. Because the cut doesn't have to happen when the vessel is nearby. Plus it's not easy to spot a vessel deep in the water.
Anyway, I bet countries do meddle with int'l links. That's a good way to tap stuff. If they screw up, the link goes down, then they just scoot off and pretend a trawler or stupid shark did it.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you don't have that much money, there are exceptions for service animals.
You have two rows too?
Seems like it's just me but I don't like the way KDE orders the tasks when there's more than one row- from top to bottom, then only left to right.
I prefer the windows style - left to right, then top to bottom.
With MS Window's style when I close/remove a task, the tasks to the right do not all get shuffled vertically, only the leftmost and rightmost tasks are affected.
With KDE, ALL tasks to the right of the removed tasks end up on a diffent row. IMO that's bad useability.
So I submitted this as a feature request, but the dev didn't like the suggested behaviour.
Whenever I hear Adam Smith I think of a joke I coined some years back which went something like this:
Q: How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Economists don't change lightbulbs - they sit theorizing in the dark whilst waiting for Adam Smith's invisible hand to change them.
p.s. (typically some non-economist gets around to changing the darn bulb and the economists say "See it works!")
p.p.s. I believe strictly speaking not all economists go for the invisible hand thingy, but hey it's a joke...
Well if you spend all your life wrapping your ribs+body around stuff, your ribs should end up a bit tougher (relatively anyway).
Given enough money pigs can even fly First Class.
Doh.
In the country I live, it is against labour laws to sack workers without compensation (esp the lower salaried ones). http://www.labourcentre.org/r_law_01.htm.
There are also regulations on how many hours a worker may be made to work - go see for yourself.
And in _practice_ the Gov and courts do not look kindly on companies that terminate employees if the company is not _losing_ money. Not sure about the actual laws involved but the courts appear to favour workers (my father was a GM of a company, and he'd recommend companies never going to labour court if possible - you'd usually lose, my other bosses in Malaysian companies were of similar opinion too).
In the US, it appears common that on the whim of some highly paid C?O, 10-20% of staff can get laid off, not because the company is losing money or the workers and middle management did anything really wrong, but because the shareholders demand an X% increase in profitability per quarter, or some C?O wanted to get a big bonus.
Sure the wages here are much lower than the US (factory workers can get about USD180/month in big companies), but so are the living costs. I doubt working conditions are much worse - it just depends on which company you work for and which area. For factory workers for electronic widget manufacturers conditions are typically quite good - housing and transport is provided, even subsidized food at cafetarias - USD0.25 for curry chicken and rice.
Typically even in the city, USD1 to USD1.2 buys you an "all you can eat" vegetarian meal (indian food), or a plate of rice, vegetables and chicken/fish.
Sure maybe if you are a plantation worker in some remote plantation life could be harsh. Even so, I doubt that's true for plantations run by most listed companies.
For the white collar workers: unlike in the USA, it is not as common for companies to require that they own all your ideas past+present+future when you join them. That's what I call real slavery - the company wants to own your _thoughts_ and _ideas_.
Also I doubt it'd be easy to convince our British style courts that a worker cannot work in the same industry he is skilled and trained in just for "non-compete" reasons.
Baker not being able to work for another bakery? Programmer not being able to work for another software company? Try requiring a lawyer who leaves a law firm to not practise law at another law firm...
Face it. Most countries just are much cheaper, and many don't have much worse working conditions (some might even be better in some ways).
That's the fault of the programmers.
I used the regmon and filemon from sysinternal's website and allowed the necessary access to the various keys/files to a "gamers" group, and voila, I can run Counterstrike as a normal user (not even power user) that's a member of the gamers group.
As for Doom3, I'm not sure why you have a problem - I could run it as a normal user. I had more problems with the video driver - the latest Nvidia driver at that time screwed things up, so I had to pick something more recent than my existing, but not quite the latest. The one from Microsoft's Windows Update was crappy too. I don't have that recent video hardware, but I'm not sure why they would mess about with the driver so much so that it makes a GF4Ti work so much worse - like a slideshow...
"what makes 55mph the best limit? Why not 40, or 25, or 10?"
I don't know the exact values for the best limit, but here's what I think people should consider:
1) Humans have limited lifespans.
2) Most keep a 24 hour cycle, with approx 16 hours awake. And spend maybe 1.5-2 hours of that on other self-maintenance (and other overheads) - grooming, cleaning, eating etc.
Now if you set a speed limit too low, you'd end up with humans spending lots of time travelling from A to B, and typically back from B to A.
If a commute is 1 hour from A to B and 1 hour back, that's two hours. And that's about 12% of your waking life gone. If by setting a stupid speed limit you increase the commute to 4 hours, that's 12.5% _more_ of your waking life gone.
That's like reducing the average life expectancy of everyone by about 10 years more.
Remember you are doing this for practically ALL the drivers - if just one driver slows down significantly, almost all drivers have to slow down.
That is a LOT of man-years gone
While driving fast kills the unlucky and the careless/ignorant/stupid, driving way too slow kills the unlucky, the careless/ignorant/stupid (by effectively creating a road obstruction/obstacle) AND also reduces the effective lifespan of almost everyone else on the same road.
I'm not saying we should all drive fast (set it too fast and some crash and everyone ends up moving really slowly). But I'm saying there really is such a thing as too slow. Most people have other things they want to do with their lives than spending it on the same road everyday.
Feel free to disagree - maybe most people would/do enjoy driving at a very slow pace to and fro work every working day.
". You can be 60 feet away from the car in front of you going 100 miles an hour and still stop in time."
This is true unless the car in front of you hits a stationary object (e.g. some wall) and slows down extremely fast.
You (as a driver) just have to hope stuff like that rarely happens and the risk*impact is worth it, otherwise you'd leave a much greater gap between the cars.
That said apparently some cars have very good occupant survivability for typical 60 mph crashes.
Just buy a new one that's not like the old crappy ones.
For most people drives are cheaper than their data (whether they know it or not is a different issue).
After all most people buy drives to store stuff, not to keep tinkering around with them(overclockers excluded).
Oh well. Maybe he should just tell the boss, that he has found his replacement, in line with current industry "best practices".
;)
The replacement is a Mr S. Sethu in Mumbai, India.
Shee-it... That is not supposed to be able to happen, _ever_. If the doors are not closed the elevator _must_NEVER_ be able to move. There should be like tons of safeguards.
I wonder how all that stuff failed... Poor guy. And the other people in the lift...
You didn't even bother to properly read the 1st link I gave. If you did you would have seen:
"Further categorization of diets showed that, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans. There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined."
The 2nd link I gave claims there were blood pressure benefits (amongst other benefits).
And there are other links like the German study on vegetarians which appears to deal with mortality as a whole, it concludes:
"Both the duration of vegetarianism and the vegetarian status (strict versus moderate) showed a moderate effect on all cause and cancer mortality. A longer duration of vegetarianism (> or = 20 years) was associated with a lower risk, pointing to a real protective effect of this lifestyle. A lower risk of death among moderate vegetarians suggests that sound nutritional planning may be more important than absolute avoidance of meat."
See the last sentence.
I give more weight to studies done by the "Division of Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Centre, Heidelberg." and "Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, United Kingdom. key@icrf.icnet.uk" than stuff some of these kooky websites[1] on nutrition claim.
[1] There are many of these around, and the USDA views on nutrition is just as useless and even more suspect - given it's not the FDA, but the Dept of _Agriculture_. Go figure.
Uh, the first link I gave doesn't support your claim. Just read the excerpt I posted. Fish and lacto-ovo vegetarians do 34% better than regular meat eaters. Whereas vegans "only" do 26% better.
(of course that's only for heart disease - the 2nd link is wrt blood pressure).
I regard your second link as a poor quality source. Lots of stating of various facts, glued together with opinion. There is a gap between the various facts given and the author's claim "But, I believe these advantages are in spite of the fish, rather than because of the fish".
Whereas, the studies I cite have the mortality and health indications directly in the results.
The first link you gave is better. It's a shame that the seas are so contaminated and I don't dispute that. So I suppose in modern times, eating lots of fish isn't such a good idea anymore.
That said there was another study in Germany that showed nonstrict vegetarians did better than strict vegetarians.
e.g. "A lower risk of death among moderate vegetarians suggests that sound nutritional planning may be more important than absolute avoidance of meat."
So far the evidence seems that less meat is good, but total avoidance of meat (strict vegetarianism) isn't as healthy.
Yah. Given the thing can only lift 200kg, it might be embarassing if you manage to kill or seriously hurt yourself with it...
It seems there's no shield between the occupant and the sides of the stationary tube.
If that is true there could be risks if stuff (like clothing) gets caught at the wrong places... Not very high I suppose - it's just like using an escalator - if you careless/stupid enough to get something caught you better hope it rips rather than you rip...
Here you go.
:( ).
"in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans"
Another study done in Africa.
Conclusion: allowing/having fish (and/or eggs) in your diet is healthier than being a strict vegetarian or vegan.
Sure you can claim the vegans weren't eating the best vegan food which may be true. But it's a lot easier to just eat eggs/fish from time to time instead of strictly avoiding them.
There are many other studies that fish is good for humans : e.g. for brains of growing children/for pregnant women - good for the babies.
My point remains: eating fish is a good thing for humans. Popular claims that humans are supposed to vegetarians are misguided. You can survive on a vegetarian diet, but you are more likely to thrive if you have some fish. Whereas stuff like red meat is more likely to kill you prematurely.
You may choose to refrain from eating fish for other reasons, but it's good for health (unless it's contaminated with mercury, other heavy metals or PCBs
p.s. I'm a tad surprised the lacto/ovo vegetarians did so well. Good news to me, I'm an omnivore that likes eggs and fish. Also a tad surprised about freshwater fish being good (always thought open-water sea fish is much better - could be true here - given the polluted rivers in my country, and the probably poor regulation of fish farms ).
AFAIK whilst eating vegetables is good for humans, eating fish is _very_ good for humans. Whilst humans can survive on vegetables, it is easier to _thrive_ if you add fish to your diet.
There are plenty of scientific studies proving that.
People in countries with a high rate of fish consumption live longer and healthier for longer.
Of course the sad thing is the fishing industry is screwed up and the seas aren't getting much cleaner.
Probably because all the antelopes that spent 20 hours sleeping ended up becoming part of lions.
I've been looking at code from coders that lived in a 1st world country and earned 1st world pay. And it really isn't that good... (BTW you're close enough about the zero documentation bit...)
:).
;).
It seems there are very few good programmers. If you're going to get crap anyway, better to pay 1/10th for it
Not saying that I'm a good programmer. Far from it. But heh, even I can do better than the crap I saw.
With just the fixes/rearchitecting of some recent code, I might have justified most (if not all) of my entire _year's_ salary already
In the original teams defense: The stuff worked well enough in the 90s when the loads were lower.
Often there aren't detailed enough requirements.
With requirements at a typical business level, you could have X totally different systems that meet them (and most better given hindsight). And often that level is as much as you're going to get when the original team has left.
Anyway recreating requirements at a detailed technical level could be a waste of time - because some module could be required to do something stupid by another module. Once you fix things all round, this requirement will be thrown out.
At one of my workplaces I made major changes in behaviour of some modules - e.g. instead of N^2 it's just N. And some things I just threw out because they were redundant.
I suppose, you could rewrite the requirements (after figuring things out), and then rewrite the code. But that's quite different from _getting_ the requirements.
I didn't say it happens frequently.t ml?legacy=zdnn">http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22 -529826.html?legacy=zdnn</a>
;). If you are tapping links of other countries then you may have to resort to this.
<a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-529826.h
Of course if you are tapping your own country's links then it's often easier - just do it on land near/at the telcos
If I were the NSA, I'd get someone to tap Google's pipe... The NSA can't officially get involved directly of course.
The guy's study is not really about whether there's global warming or not. The study claims that there is not really much consensus amongst the 1000 papers, unlike what Oreskes's study claims.
So it's not really about raw data.
Yawn...
That's very simple to fix. Foreigners and perhaps "Upper Castes" get to use VPNs. The rest don't.
Many ways of ensuring sufficient compliance: bullets through back of head, long imprisonment terms.
"You know exactly where the cut is, and when it happened."
But you don't necessarily know which vessel caused the cut. Because the cut doesn't have to happen when the vessel is nearby. Plus it's not easy to spot a vessel deep in the water.
Anyway, I bet countries do meddle with int'l links. That's a good way to tap stuff. If they screw up, the link goes down, then they just scoot off and pretend a trawler or stupid shark did it.