There is indeed a preference for "sweet food". But, sugar, as we use it in the US, is not a natural product. To people raised on more natural diets, sugar will seem unnatural, and inferior to other sweeteners, such as honey, or maple syrup. There are other sweeteners that are much better for you, than the bleached, processed granular sugar that we all know in the modern day US.
Sugar is an acquired taste, of that I'm quite sure.
Sugar is an acquired taste. As is beef, pork, beets, corn, or anything else you consume. For the most part, you are introduced to all the foods you will ever eat by the time you are five to ten years old. Your tastes may change during your lifetime, but relatively few of us go exploring the world in search of new tastes.
Imagine - billions of humans of been born, grown up, aged, and died without ever tasting beef. If offered beef, they would turn their noses up at it.
Meanwhile, other billions can hardly imagine a day without beef in their diets.
You are conditioned by your environment, your culture, and your environment. What a concept, huh?
If you can honestly make that claim, then you are unlikely to distinguish between a Porterhouse steak, and a tough strip of gristle at a rundown truck stop.
I am CERTAINLY NOT an expert, but I can tell cheap bilge water like Mad Dog from a wine that is actually fit for human consumption. I can tell a better wine from common table wine. No, I cannot distinguish much more than that. Either a wine smells and tastes good - or it doesn't. How can a person with no taste survive to adulthood? I would expect that he would kill himself with some kind of poison long before reaching voting age.
Uhhhh - no, not exactly. The E libraries work differently. Everything works differently. I've run exactly the same applications side by side on an E installation, and a Gnome installation, and then a K installation. E uses more resources than something like OpenBox, but considerably less than G or K, and certainly less than Unity.
E's problem is that some things simply remain unfinished.
I'll grant some slim possibility that you are partly right. Let's suppose that to finish all the unfinished stuff, E ends up using 10% more resources than it does now. It will STILL be significantly more efficient than any of the heavy weights in use today. People who are carefully conserving every single miliwatt may still opt for OpenBox or similar, but the differences aren't going to be deal breakers for all of us.
I'll let you in on a secret. I'm not 100% comfortable in a CLI only environment all the time. My brain is aging, and I forget simple things sometimes. Other things, I never knew. I prefer a GUI most of the time. My argument is against those heavy weight DE's that require a gig of memory just to run. All those widgets and whatnot - they don't actually add anything to the user experience. Mostly, they just define new ways to do the same old stuff. Which only means that you and I have to learn the new ways that the developers have decided is "better" in some way.
I'm not exactly stuck in yesterday, but neither am I inclined to learn a new DE every couple of years because the younger generation deems it necessary.
I mentioned eye candy. It's always been somewhat important on Windows. In the Linux world, K made a big push to implement eye candy, then I became aware of Enlightenment, then Ubuntu announced their Unity, then finally Gnome did the same. Somewhere in that mess, Windows decided they were interested in the Metro thing - was it soon after KDE 4 was released?
Anyway - what I'm saying is, to much emphasis is put on the eye candy. Those things that the "development platform" is needed for, have been done all along on the older, simpler, if less pretty desktops.
What I'd LIKE TO SEE, is some of that wasted energy spent on developing Enlightenment. It has all the eye candy anyone could want - but uses far less resources than any comparably "pretty" desktop. Had Ubuntu picked up on Enlightenment, it's anyone's guess where E would be today. I mean - they created an all-new DE in quite short order. Had they taken Enlightenment, and spent the same resources on it, they could have customized E to do everything that Unity does, at much less cost in resources.
Ehhh - I guess when you get down to it, there's no accounting for taste, or for common sense. There are people who actually claim to LIKE Unity!
Ahhh - never thought of that. Makes sense to anyone who has ever had cold survival training. A humid atmosphere leeches warmth from a human body much faster than a dry atmosphere, all other things being equal.
I pretty much agree with your post. If we were to start voting third party, we might get as much as 25% of the congress and senate seats filled by "outsiders". Might, I say. I can't see any third party gaining a majority, for a long, long, LONG time to come. But 10% is enough to send a wake-up call to the two major parties.
If a third party candidate ran for president, and he got a significant percentage of the votes - say 20%, that would be enough to scare the two major parties. The winning candidate would probably only be able to claim 45% of the popular vote, and the rat bastard couldn't run at the mouth, claiming to have a "mandate" to change the world in his party's image.
The two parties are here to stay, no matter how little I like it. But, we can and should throw outsiders into the mix at every opportunity! I'm no believer in communism, but I'll be happy to elect a commie to the senate. And two more to congress. Let's put a half dozen of the crazy tree huggers in office too. A dozen Libertarians. Three dozen independents. ANYTHING that throws a wrench into today's cozy little gay-fest between the Democrats and Republicans.
No - I refuse to restrict myself to your definition of "modern full-feature DE's". There is really no need for these desktop environments. Eye candy is eye candy, and it adds little to nothing to the user experience over something such as Enlightenment or Mate. Further, there are various desktops that are more "lightweight" yet, and some of them are quite attractive. (personally, I don't find them ALL to be attractive - but that is somewhat beside the point) Waste is waste, it's really that simple.
I'll PM Linus right now, and tell him that he should never apply for a job with Mr. Anonymous Coward. And, which of the Fortune 500 companies do you work for, Sir?
In terms of resource consumption, yes, windows > Linux. Yeah, go for it. Why on earth did Microsoft claim that Windows XP could run on 128 meg of ram? Oh yeah - because being honest, and telling the world that XP really needed 512 meg to run well would increase the cost of computers to the point where people might explore Linux - which STILL can be configured to run on megs of ram, rather than gigs of ram. (before someone points it out, I'm very much aware that when poorly configured, Linux can waste 4, 8, or even 16 gigs of ram on the desktop environment and a browser)
Actually - bullshit affects all of us every day. That doesn't make the bullshit any less feces-like. Media may be independent, there is definitely a new paradigm, but Wikileaks is not American. Whistle blowing to a non-American entity with no authority to fix any of the problems being exposed is worse than stupid. In fact, some pretty valuable intelligence was indeed handed over to enemies of the United States. Some of that data was found on Osama bin Laden's laptop. If Osama had it, do you really think that his active lieutenants out in the field didn't have it?
Arguing against insane IP laws does not equate to justifying plagiarism. It's perfectly acceptable to use Einstein's work in the creation of a physics paper. It's entirely WRONG to claim any part of Einstein's work as your own.
Even in the open source world, it's perfectly fine to use other people's work, as long as you don't attempt to take credit for their work. When you alter someone's open source application, you leave all the credits in place, merely adding your own name with your own contribution to the application.
When was the last time you saw someone being prosecuted for putting their own credits at the tail end of a Hollywood movie? It simply doesn't happen.
Alright - what happens in a data center when it gets "TOO dry"? I would assume that people entering the building would become static electricity hazards. It would become essential that anyone handling or touching equipment must use a grounding strap. Anything else?
I've never met anyone who was willing to admit that! Oh, wait - Anonymous Coward? I still haven't met anyone who is willing to admit that he is a native of the District of Columbia.
"Post nation state entity" is some kind of made up bullshit, and it's not American.
As for Manning - the NYT and WashPO are not whistle blower's primary destinations either. He had a couple of congress critters to turn to. Those congress critters are PRIMARY choices.
At least some of the "crimes" are faked. That Apache video, for instance. It was edited and narrated by people who are clueless. The Reuters reporter was EMBEDDED in an insurgent unit which had fired on American troops on the ground. That insurgent unit was reported to higher command by the troops on the ground, and the Apache was dispatched to the area to FIND that insurgent unit. Most of the individuals killed in the initial encounter were armed, because they were soldiers in Badr's army. They were killed because they were combatants. The reporters just happened to choose to embed themselves in the wrong unit.
I've never arrived at a solid conclusion on the morality of shooting up the van. Had the van been marked with a Red Cross or a Red Crescent, then it would definitely have been wrong. But - it wasn't. The assumption that the van belonged to insurgents may or may not have been correct. It's definitely unfortunate that there were children in the van.
You are correct - but few people are going to actually think of that when the shit hits the fan. Certainly not people who aren't trained to think that way.;^)
40 years ago, I had run away from home multiple times. I earned the name. "Runaway" is not synonymous with "coward". Don't like my nick? That's fine. Don't like my opinion? That's fine too. But, you don't have to show your ignorance to disagree with me.
I've also ridden a runaway truck down a mountainside - twice. And, maintained enough control that I'm here to post on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/blame-cfcs-for-warmin-idUSnPNTO244+78+PRN20130530
There is indeed a preference for "sweet food". But, sugar, as we use it in the US, is not a natural product. To people raised on more natural diets, sugar will seem unnatural, and inferior to other sweeteners, such as honey, or maple syrup. There are other sweeteners that are much better for you, than the bleached, processed granular sugar that we all know in the modern day US.
Sugar is an acquired taste, of that I'm quite sure.
Sugar is an acquired taste. As is beef, pork, beets, corn, or anything else you consume. For the most part, you are introduced to all the foods you will ever eat by the time you are five to ten years old. Your tastes may change during your lifetime, but relatively few of us go exploring the world in search of new tastes.
Imagine - billions of humans of been born, grown up, aged, and died without ever tasting beef. If offered beef, they would turn their noses up at it.
Meanwhile, other billions can hardly imagine a day without beef in their diets.
You are conditioned by your environment, your culture, and your environment. What a concept, huh?
All wine is the same, huh?
If you can honestly make that claim, then you are unlikely to distinguish between a Porterhouse steak, and a tough strip of gristle at a rundown truck stop.
I am CERTAINLY NOT an expert, but I can tell cheap bilge water like Mad Dog from a wine that is actually fit for human consumption. I can tell a better wine from common table wine. No, I cannot distinguish much more than that. Either a wine smells and tastes good - or it doesn't. How can a person with no taste survive to adulthood? I would expect that he would kill himself with some kind of poison long before reaching voting age.
Uhhhh - no, not exactly. The E libraries work differently. Everything works differently. I've run exactly the same applications side by side on an E installation, and a Gnome installation, and then a K installation. E uses more resources than something like OpenBox, but considerably less than G or K, and certainly less than Unity.
E's problem is that some things simply remain unfinished.
I'll grant some slim possibility that you are partly right. Let's suppose that to finish all the unfinished stuff, E ends up using 10% more resources than it does now. It will STILL be significantly more efficient than any of the heavy weights in use today. People who are carefully conserving every single miliwatt may still opt for OpenBox or similar, but the differences aren't going to be deal breakers for all of us.
Parent post is flamebait? Really? If so, then here is some more flamebait for everyone. Read about the Long Island Express: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/38hurricane/
I'll let you in on a secret. I'm not 100% comfortable in a CLI only environment all the time. My brain is aging, and I forget simple things sometimes. Other things, I never knew. I prefer a GUI most of the time. My argument is against those heavy weight DE's that require a gig of memory just to run. All those widgets and whatnot - they don't actually add anything to the user experience. Mostly, they just define new ways to do the same old stuff. Which only means that you and I have to learn the new ways that the developers have decided is "better" in some way.
I'm not exactly stuck in yesterday, but neither am I inclined to learn a new DE every couple of years because the younger generation deems it necessary.
I mentioned eye candy. It's always been somewhat important on Windows. In the Linux world, K made a big push to implement eye candy, then I became aware of Enlightenment, then Ubuntu announced their Unity, then finally Gnome did the same. Somewhere in that mess, Windows decided they were interested in the Metro thing - was it soon after KDE 4 was released?
Anyway - what I'm saying is, to much emphasis is put on the eye candy. Those things that the "development platform" is needed for, have been done all along on the older, simpler, if less pretty desktops.
What I'd LIKE TO SEE, is some of that wasted energy spent on developing Enlightenment. It has all the eye candy anyone could want - but uses far less resources than any comparably "pretty" desktop. Had Ubuntu picked up on Enlightenment, it's anyone's guess where E would be today. I mean - they created an all-new DE in quite short order. Had they taken Enlightenment, and spent the same resources on it, they could have customized E to do everything that Unity does, at much less cost in resources.
Ehhh - I guess when you get down to it, there's no accounting for taste, or for common sense. There are people who actually claim to LIKE Unity!
Ahhh - never thought of that. Makes sense to anyone who has ever had cold survival training. A humid atmosphere leeches warmth from a human body much faster than a dry atmosphere, all other things being equal.
Egg-zactly! The question is - why is it so hard for so many people to understand something so simple?
I pretty much agree with your post. If we were to start voting third party, we might get as much as 25% of the congress and senate seats filled by "outsiders". Might, I say. I can't see any third party gaining a majority, for a long, long, LONG time to come. But 10% is enough to send a wake-up call to the two major parties.
If a third party candidate ran for president, and he got a significant percentage of the votes - say 20%, that would be enough to scare the two major parties. The winning candidate would probably only be able to claim 45% of the popular vote, and the rat bastard couldn't run at the mouth, claiming to have a "mandate" to change the world in his party's image.
The two parties are here to stay, no matter how little I like it. But, we can and should throw outsiders into the mix at every opportunity! I'm no believer in communism, but I'll be happy to elect a commie to the senate. And two more to congress. Let's put a half dozen of the crazy tree huggers in office too. A dozen Libertarians. Three dozen independents. ANYTHING that throws a wrench into today's cozy little gay-fest between the Democrats and Republicans.
No - I refuse to restrict myself to your definition of "modern full-feature DE's". There is really no need for these desktop environments. Eye candy is eye candy, and it adds little to nothing to the user experience over something such as Enlightenment or Mate. Further, there are various desktops that are more "lightweight" yet, and some of them are quite attractive. (personally, I don't find them ALL to be attractive - but that is somewhat beside the point) Waste is waste, it's really that simple.
I'll PM Linus right now, and tell him that he should never apply for a job with Mr. Anonymous Coward. And, which of the Fortune 500 companies do you work for, Sir?
In terms of resource consumption, yes, windows > Linux. Yeah, go for it. Why on earth did Microsoft claim that Windows XP could run on 128 meg of ram? Oh yeah - because being honest, and telling the world that XP really needed 512 meg to run well would increase the cost of computers to the point where people might explore Linux - which STILL can be configured to run on megs of ram, rather than gigs of ram. (before someone points it out, I'm very much aware that when poorly configured, Linux can waste 4, 8, or even 16 gigs of ram on the desktop environment and a browser)
Actually - bullshit affects all of us every day. That doesn't make the bullshit any less feces-like. Media may be independent, there is definitely a new paradigm, but Wikileaks is not American. Whistle blowing to a non-American entity with no authority to fix any of the problems being exposed is worse than stupid. In fact, some pretty valuable intelligence was indeed handed over to enemies of the United States. Some of that data was found on Osama bin Laden's laptop. If Osama had it, do you really think that his active lieutenants out in the field didn't have it?
Arguing against insane IP laws does not equate to justifying plagiarism. It's perfectly acceptable to use Einstein's work in the creation of a physics paper. It's entirely WRONG to claim any part of Einstein's work as your own.
Even in the open source world, it's perfectly fine to use other people's work, as long as you don't attempt to take credit for their work. When you alter someone's open source application, you leave all the credits in place, merely adding your own name with your own contribution to the application.
When was the last time you saw someone being prosecuted for putting their own credits at the tail end of a Hollywood movie? It simply doesn't happen.
Alright - what happens in a data center when it gets "TOO dry"? I would assume that people entering the building would become static electricity hazards. It would become essential that anyone handling or touching equipment must use a grounding strap. Anything else?
"and yes, I am a native of DC."
I've never met anyone who was willing to admit that! Oh, wait - Anonymous Coward? I still haven't met anyone who is willing to admit that he is a native of the District of Columbia.
"Post nation state entity" is some kind of made up bullshit, and it's not American.
As for Manning - the NYT and WashPO are not whistle blower's primary destinations either. He had a couple of congress critters to turn to. Those congress critters are PRIMARY choices.
rutabaga, not beet
If Manning felt the need for whistle blowing, he had various options that did not include sending all that data to a foreign organization.
At least some of the "crimes" are faked. That Apache video, for instance. It was edited and narrated by people who are clueless. The Reuters reporter was EMBEDDED in an insurgent unit which had fired on American troops on the ground. That insurgent unit was reported to higher command by the troops on the ground, and the Apache was dispatched to the area to FIND that insurgent unit. Most of the individuals killed in the initial encounter were armed, because they were soldiers in Badr's army. They were killed because they were combatants. The reporters just happened to choose to embed themselves in the wrong unit.
I've never arrived at a solid conclusion on the morality of shooting up the van. Had the van been marked with a Red Cross or a Red Crescent, then it would definitely have been wrong. But - it wasn't. The assumption that the van belonged to insurgents may or may not have been correct. It's definitely unfortunate that there were children in the van.
also lol at anonymously claiming you're anonymous online
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance-prism-obama-live
You are correct - but few people are going to actually think of that when the shit hits the fan. Certainly not people who aren't trained to think that way. ;^)
40 years ago, I had run away from home multiple times. I earned the name. "Runaway" is not synonymous with "coward". Don't like my nick? That's fine. Don't like my opinion? That's fine too. But, you don't have to show your ignorance to disagree with me.
I've also ridden a runaway truck down a mountainside - twice. And, maintained enough control that I'm here to post on Slashdot.