I don't like Unity either, but my plan for 12.04 is to keep Ubuntu, with which I'm otherwise still satisfied, and install MATE. There's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Even in a swing state, the odds that your vote will affect the outcome is vanishingly small. If you're going to vote at all, why waste it on someone you don't think is best?
What I would do if I were in charge of a third party is use the role of spoiler to my advantage. By this, I mean that I would choose the major party that was less bad when it came my positions, and run candidates against them only when they nominated particularly horrible candidates. In other words, the deal would be if they run someone who doesn't suck, I'll leave them alone, but it they run someone bad, my party will do what it can to punish them.
I've never understood this mentality. Your vote is mind-bogglingly unlikely to make the difference either way. What exactly do you have to lose by actually voting for the candidate you like the best?
I don't think Teler would have protested his competitor adopting the trick itself (magician interacts with shadow on screen but affecting the physical object casintg the shadow) -- he'd have expected credit ("This trick was invented by Teller") but wouldn't have claimed legal ownership.
Has he actually said this somewhere, or are you just kind of making stuff up?
Ultimately, it's not about religious extremists telling the government what to do, it's about their telling actual individual people what to do. If ever there were a time for methodological individualism, this is it.
I didn't mean to suggest climate researchers were especially stubborn and petty, only that they're people, and therefore no less so than any other people. I was only countering the whole "noble scientist, data rules all" stereotype, nothing more. As I said in the first place, I don't find it hard to believe that the climate is changing.
Maybe you're right -- I hope you are! I can't help but thinking, though, that unlike the existence of tachyons this issue has become so politicized that the relevant scientific institutions wouldn't operate in that sort of vacuum. It's not like those guys were being called "speed of light deniers" and nonsense like that. I suppose the reason for my cynicism is that I've worked in higher education for a decade and seen that while researchers may often be highly intelligent, they can be at least as stubborn and petty as anyone else. There's a reason for the saying that science advances one funeral at a time....
There is that, although it's also true that mainstream scientists take money from government grants and related sources, meaning their very livelihood depends on the reverse. And I say that as someone who more or less accepts the argument that global climates are changing. (There, now I can get downmodded by both sides.)
Does DNA come with a timestamp? If not, that's only important if they were strangers. They weren't. (Not saying he didn't do it, just pointing out that one thing. And I agree that once cops mess with evidence, bam, that's reasonable doubt.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a Firefox user too, but if something like that happened to me I would switch to Chromium and do something else with my evening.
As a desktop Linux user I wish this weren't so, but I doubt there are enough of us for them to care much one way or the other.
And thank goodness, as otherwise software would just be long strings of ones!
I have no choice but assuming that you work for a patent troll or are one yourself.
I basically agreed with everything else you said, but this was pretty over-the-top ridiculous.
Or, if you don't like either, just install MATE. It's pretty much the way forward as far as many Gnome users are concerned.
Media attention seems to have saved the CS department whereas their researching and teaching did not.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
No, that would be Queer Quetzal.
I don't like Unity either, but my plan for 12.04 is to keep Ubuntu, with which I'm otherwise still satisfied, and install MATE. There's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
However I suspect dozens more will follow them upon realizing that the company endorses firing people via e-mail using a form letter.
Hmm, although if the company is that dysfunctional, it's not like the people who go there every day haven't already noticed that it sucks.
Sorry. But. Periods. Don't. Make. That. True.
Well... Marshal Pétain did it, and a lot of others besides.
That only makes sense if you have a few hundred votes. You don't, you have one. (Unless you're Diebold.)
Even in a swing state, the odds that your vote will affect the outcome is vanishingly small. If you're going to vote at all, why waste it on someone you don't think is best?
What I would do if I were in charge of a third party is use the role of spoiler to my advantage. By this, I mean that I would choose the major party that was less bad when it came my positions, and run candidates against them only when they nominated particularly horrible candidates. In other words, the deal would be if they run someone who doesn't suck, I'll leave them alone, but it they run someone bad, my party will do what it can to punish them.
What issues matter to you, and where do you stand on them?
I've never understood this mentality. Your vote is mind-bogglingly unlikely to make the difference either way. What exactly do you have to lose by actually voting for the candidate you like the best?
I hate to be one of those nogoodniks who responds, "Why is this news for nerds?" but... why is this news for nerds?
I don't think Teler would have protested his competitor adopting the trick itself (magician interacts with shadow on screen but affecting the physical object casintg the shadow) -- he'd have expected credit ("This trick was invented by Teller") but wouldn't have claimed legal ownership.
Has he actually said this somewhere, or are you just kind of making stuff up?
Ultimately, it's not about religious extremists telling the government what to do, it's about their telling actual individual people what to do. If ever there were a time for methodological individualism, this is it.
I didn't mean to suggest climate researchers were especially stubborn and petty, only that they're people, and therefore no less so than any other people. I was only countering the whole "noble scientist, data rules all" stereotype, nothing more. As I said in the first place, I don't find it hard to believe that the climate is changing.
Maybe you're right -- I hope you are! I can't help but thinking, though, that unlike the existence of tachyons this issue has become so politicized that the relevant scientific institutions wouldn't operate in that sort of vacuum. It's not like those guys were being called "speed of light deniers" and nonsense like that. I suppose the reason for my cynicism is that I've worked in higher education for a decade and seen that while researchers may often be highly intelligent, they can be at least as stubborn and petty as anyone else. There's a reason for the saying that science advances one funeral at a time....
If you could produce data that disproved a major current theory, you'd be in line for a Nobel Prize.
Perhaps, but only if you can get it published in journals the relevant Nobel committee will recognize. Good luck with that.
There is that, although it's also true that mainstream scientists take money from government grants and related sources, meaning their very livelihood depends on the reverse. And I say that as someone who more or less accepts the argument that global climates are changing. (There, now I can get downmodded by both sides.)
Does DNA come with a timestamp? If not, that's only important if they were strangers. They weren't. (Not saying he didn't do it, just pointing out that one thing. And I agree that once cops mess with evidence, bam, that's reasonable doubt.)
That's extortion, which is a felony.