There is no good software for presentations on Linux that compares to Keynote or PowerPoint.
I've found this to be true only at very extreme levels of flashiness where razzle and dazzle are more important than content, and you want people paying attention to the special effects rather than the point you're trying to get across, if there even is one.
The most probable scenario for this, in my own experience, is suits selling expensive stuff to suits... stuff that the salesman doesn't really understand and the prospective buyer maybe isn't capable of understanding.
Short of that, if you, you know, actually want to get a message across, Linux has all sorts of excellent options.
It indeed seems like a lot left to the imagination. 12 minutes is a "long" period of inactivity and 7 is "short"? There is a lot of implied precision here which I wonder if the stats fully bear out to a meaningful level of confidence.
I thought I was doing well with the Pomodoro method (in my implementation, 25 minutes of work, 5 minutes of getting up and walking around) but apparently I should be doing 7 minute work intervals?
Perhaps the research is good, I haven't tried to review it in enough detail, but the numbers do stretch credibility a little.
No complex software is without bugs, no complex software is completely secure. I'm a big open source fan but this is reality. Open or closed, there will be bugs and exploits. Subjectively, it seems open source may get fixed more quickly, but that doesn't change the bottom line, which is that the onus is on the company.
Equifax stores tons of sensitive information and it's up to them to protect it properly. No excuses, no finger pointing, no passing the blame. They are responsible, period.
The case presented was of course at the more extreme end, but how many thousands, probably millions, suffer from the same thing to a lesser but still significant degree?
The distractions around us are indeed endless. Someone sends us a text and wonders why we don't answer within, literally, seconds. We're never off work (in many professions) because we carry our phones everywhere, and we're "always connected."
Electronics have advanced us greatly but there's no free lunch.
So now we see the rise of things like the "Pomodoro Technique" --- a means of doing as the subject of the article did, namely, concentrate on just a single task for a period of time.
Not just in IT, everywhere. There are plenty of studies showing that attractive people (of any gender) are more likely to be hired, and that being overweight lowers your chances. Fair? Perhaps not, but it's how it is.
HR departments typically understand nothing. We can hire a 23 year old for half the wages? Great! All the buzzwords are on the resume so it's all good, right?
As I've said elsewhere, a successful IT project is not magic. It requires skill, dedication, experience, and good leadership. The 23 year olds have how many of those attributes to what degree? Skill, probably. Dedication, possibly.
Nothing against 23 year olds. But at that point in my career I was grateful for those experienced mentors who were able to channel my skills and enthusiasm. They were paid twice as much for sure, maybe more, but they provided commensurate value.
If however, the output expected is of folks who can do heavy serious coding (read coding closer to the metal), then such camps are a pipe dream.
Long ago I did a high school summer program put on by a nearby university. It was 8 weeks long, and in it I learned Fortran and assembler (for the old IBM 1620, that's how long ago this was). Definitely coding close to the metal, and I wrote a significant game-playing program as my required project.
I don't know how the boot camps are run today, but I can certainly say that the 8 week summer program I participated in taught me to code, and code reasonably well. It also gave me an understanding of architecture. Was I then an expert? No, of course not, but I was at least reasonably competent, and I was well on my way.
And then there's FOSS. Their "thing" is freedom. Freedom to choose. Freedom to configure. Freedom to hack into something and make it work yourself. Freedom to have a working system at all times!
Your post is actually "très cool" but I'll dispute your last point a little. My FOSS (Linux) system works at all times. When something is wrong, it is true that I often have to take a certain amount of responsibility (which can at times be as much as 100%) for fixing it.
The point is that I can fix it. If I run Windows 10 and have a problem, I would have to rely on others, like MS themselves in many cases, for a fix. I would not have control.
Now, that control comes at a cost: the willingness to learn things and put in some time. But I'm willing to go there, because then I can indeed have a system that works at all times.
The issue is that the world has moved on and Hollywood hasn't changed its business model very much. Then they wonder why they're getting left behind, and start to blame piracy, streaming, and anything they can think of.
The movie experience was once the only experience. Hollywood wants those days back and keeps producing movies as if that were to happen tomorrow. Hollywood execs are known to be conservative as to what gets green-lighted; they hardly ever will take a chance on something new and different. They think people will just automatically come to the movies because that's what they did until maybe the 80s, and they can just recycle whatever and it will be good enough.
Until Hollywood changes, they will continue to slide.
The fragmentation of services like HBO and the new Disney service will lead to a case against cord cutting
It will also lead to a case of simply not bothering.
I may be atypical (though hardly alone) in that I just don't have a need for TV. I do use Netflix, but if the value of that continues to be reduced, I will have no hesitation to just drop it and not be bothered. Maybe I'll keep their old-fashioned DVD service, and watch 4 or 5 movies per month.
There are plenty of worthwhile and interesting things to do besides watch TV.
I ran a little audio production outfit once upon a time called Avi Gobbler Productions. One day I got an email from a guy in Holland who sold "Gobbler Anti-Virus" and demanded I stop using the word "Gobbler" in my company name, as it infringed his trademark.
When I wrote back pointing out that my trademark predated his by a number of years, I never heard from him again. But he didn't have a case in any event.
Git is fine for single-person projects and certainly scales.
But for what I do (write stories and novels), my 'projects' are single-user and typically single-file. Still, I *definitely* need version control for the "oops, I didn't want to delete that chapter" moments.
For my purposes RCS is just fine. It's fast, lightweight, well-integrated with Emacs, more or less plain text, and has just enough features to be practical for what I'm doing. Laugh if you will at such an old system, but it still has its place.
My working copy and RCS repo is of course backed up via rsync to a strongspace.com free account, and then replicated to multiple computers (desktop, laptops, netbook).
If this guy was so clueless/inexperienced to not have a separate backup (off-site, in the cloud, wherever) then he has learned a difficult lesson. He can blame the tools all he wishes, but the fault lies squarely with him.
I'm obsessive about backups. There's a reason for that. Things go wrong all the time.
Full disclosure: I once lost almost 10,000 words of a novel I was writing due to my own cluelessness about certain backup systems. It was a hard lesson.
I actually read TFA and it certainly seems to jump to conclusions about extinction. It's a big leap to say that, based on one incomplete data point, intelligent life is bound to destroy both itself AND its biosphere. (The one data point is of course us, and our civilization still exists, so there is no closure that demonstrates destruction, at least not so far.)
I thought the author might have been one of those self-hating we're-all-bad, we're-all-going-to-destroy-the-world types, but to be fair that's not the impression I get from reading the article.
It seems clear that, with the data in hand, it's impossible to draw any meaningful conclusion with any significant degree of confidence.
The idea that the universe is immense, travel across it is, at least to our current knowledge, extremely slow, is the reason species have not been in contact--- that's appealing and has consistent logic, but it's well short of proof.
We just don't know, and we can come up with all sorts of theories, but we still don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no good software for presentations on Linux that compares to Keynote or PowerPoint.
I've found this to be true only at very extreme levels of flashiness where razzle and dazzle are more important than content, and you want people paying attention to the special effects rather than the point you're trying to get across, if there even is one.
The most probable scenario for this, in my own experience, is suits selling expensive stuff to suits ... stuff that the salesman doesn't really understand and the prospective buyer maybe isn't capable of understanding.
Short of that, if you, you know, actually want to get a message across, Linux has all sorts of excellent options.
I don't particularly agree with your approach but I give you full credit for not posting as an AC.
I can buy a decent laptop AND a decent tablet for about the cost of that iPhone X.
Oh, right, but that won't give me hipster status.
It indeed seems like a lot left to the imagination. 12 minutes is a "long" period of inactivity and 7 is "short"? There is a lot of implied precision here which I wonder if the stats fully bear out to a meaningful level of confidence.
I thought I was doing well with the Pomodoro method (in my implementation, 25 minutes of work, 5 minutes of getting up and walking around) but apparently I should be doing 7 minute work intervals?
Perhaps the research is good, I haven't tried to review it in enough detail, but the numbers do stretch credibility a little.
Maybe it was global warming. Or Trump.
No complex software is without bugs, no complex software is completely secure. I'm a big open source fan but this is reality. Open or closed, there will be bugs and exploits. Subjectively, it seems open source may get fixed more quickly, but that doesn't change the bottom line, which is that the onus is on the company.
Equifax stores tons of sensitive information and it's up to them to protect it properly. No excuses, no finger pointing, no passing the blame. They are responsible, period.
It's no wonder so many people are moving away from Linux, and using alternate OSes like FreeBSD, macOS or even Windows instead.
Got some stats for this? If you do, let's see them ... I'd be genuinely interested. If you don't, you're a troll.
Will Trump be the Engineer?
The case presented was of course at the more extreme end, but how many thousands, probably millions, suffer from the same thing to a lesser but still significant degree?
The distractions around us are indeed endless. Someone sends us a text and wonders why we don't answer within, literally, seconds. We're never off work (in many professions) because we carry our phones everywhere, and we're "always connected."
Electronics have advanced us greatly but there's no free lunch.
So now we see the rise of things like the "Pomodoro Technique" --- a means of doing as the subject of the article did, namely, concentrate on just a single task for a period of time.
Do we own our devices or do they own us?
That is a real and relevant question.
And besides it's already been fixed. Ever seen Windows fixed that fast when a vulnerability is found? I didn't think so.
You may think Google is evil, Apple is evil, Oracle is evil, MS is evil ... take your pick.
But Elsevier ... they are truly evil.
It is a hard thing, but looks do matter in IT.
Not just in IT, everywhere. There are plenty of studies showing that attractive people (of any gender) are more likely to be hired, and that being overweight lowers your chances. Fair? Perhaps not, but it's how it is.
I think it's HR departments as much as managers.
HR departments typically understand nothing. We can hire a 23 year old for half the wages? Great! All the buzzwords are on the resume so it's all good, right?
As I've said elsewhere, a successful IT project is not magic. It requires skill, dedication, experience, and good leadership. The 23 year olds have how many of those attributes to what degree? Skill, probably. Dedication, possibly.
Nothing against 23 year olds. But at that point in my career I was grateful for those experienced mentors who were able to channel my skills and enthusiasm. They were paid twice as much for sure, maybe more, but they provided commensurate value.
If however, the output expected is of folks who can do heavy serious coding (read coding closer to the metal), then such camps are a pipe dream.
Long ago I did a high school summer program put on by a nearby university. It was 8 weeks long, and in it I learned Fortran and assembler (for the old IBM 1620, that's how long ago this was). Definitely coding close to the metal, and I wrote a significant game-playing program as my required project.
I don't know how the boot camps are run today, but I can certainly say that the 8 week summer program I participated in taught me to code, and code reasonably well. It also gave me an understanding of architecture. Was I then an expert? No, of course not, but I was at least reasonably competent, and I was well on my way.
And then there's FOSS. Their "thing" is freedom. Freedom to choose. Freedom to configure. Freedom to hack into something and make it work yourself. Freedom to have a working system at all times!
Your post is actually "très cool" but I'll dispute your last point a little. My FOSS (Linux) system works at all times. When something is wrong, it is true that I often have to take a certain amount of responsibility (which can at times be as much as 100%) for fixing it.
The point is that I can fix it. If I run Windows 10 and have a problem, I would have to rely on others, like MS themselves in many cases, for a fix. I would not have control.
Now, that control comes at a cost: the willingness to learn things and put in some time. But I'm willing to go there, because then I can indeed have a system that works at all times.
You don't have to use their products.
Absolutely right, and I've followed that advice for years with no ill effects.
The issue is that the world has moved on and Hollywood hasn't changed its business model very much. Then they wonder why they're getting left behind, and start to blame piracy, streaming, and anything they can think of.
The movie experience was once the only experience. Hollywood wants those days back and keeps producing movies as if that were to happen tomorrow. Hollywood execs are known to be conservative as to what gets green-lighted; they hardly ever will take a chance on something new and different. They think people will just automatically come to the movies because that's what they did until maybe the 80s, and they can just recycle whatever and it will be good enough.
Until Hollywood changes, they will continue to slide.
The fragmentation of services like HBO and the new Disney service will lead to a case against cord cutting
It will also lead to a case of simply not bothering.
I may be atypical (though hardly alone) in that I just don't have a need for TV. I do use Netflix, but if the value of that continues to be reduced, I will have no hesitation to just drop it and not be bothered. Maybe I'll keep their old-fashioned DVD service, and watch 4 or 5 movies per month.
There are plenty of worthwhile and interesting things to do besides watch TV.
OK Grandpa. Make sure you're in bed before 8 and take your medicine too.
Come on, I stay up until 10 once in a while.
I ran a little audio production outfit once upon a time called Avi Gobbler Productions. One day I got an email from a guy in Holland who sold "Gobbler Anti-Virus" and demanded I stop using the word "Gobbler" in my company name, as it infringed his trademark.
When I wrote back pointing out that my trademark predated his by a number of years, I never heard from him again. But he didn't have a case in any event.
Git is fine for single-person projects and certainly scales.
But for what I do (write stories and novels), my 'projects' are single-user and typically single-file. Still, I *definitely* need version control for the "oops, I didn't want to delete that chapter" moments.
For my purposes RCS is just fine. It's fast, lightweight, well-integrated with Emacs, more or less plain text, and has just enough features to be practical for what I'm doing. Laugh if you will at such an old system, but it still has its place.
My working copy and RCS repo is of course backed up via rsync to a strongspace.com free account, and then replicated to multiple computers (desktop, laptops, netbook).
I backup to the cloud and then replicate to two other computers, just in case there is a cloud problem.
If your work is important and you care about it, you won't take chances with it.
If this guy was so clueless/inexperienced to not have a separate backup (off-site, in the cloud, wherever) then he has learned a difficult lesson. He can blame the tools all he wishes, but the fault lies squarely with him.
I'm obsessive about backups. There's a reason for that. Things go wrong all the time.
Full disclosure: I once lost almost 10,000 words of a novel I was writing due to my own cluelessness about certain backup systems. It was a hard lesson.
I actually read TFA and it certainly seems to jump to conclusions about extinction. It's a big leap to say that, based on one incomplete data point, intelligent life is bound to destroy both itself AND its biosphere. (The one data point is of course us, and our civilization still exists, so there is no closure that demonstrates destruction, at least not so far.)
I thought the author might have been one of those self-hating we're-all-bad, we're-all-going-to-destroy-the-world types, but to be fair that's not the impression I get from reading the article.
It seems clear that, with the data in hand, it's impossible to draw any meaningful conclusion with any significant degree of confidence.
The idea that the universe is immense, travel across it is, at least to our current knowledge, extremely slow, is the reason species have not been in contact--- that's appealing and has consistent logic, but it's well short of proof.
We just don't know, and we can come up with all sorts of theories, but we still don't know.
Actually the channels were 2 through 13 (not 3 through 13). I believe VHF low (2-6) has since been dropped, but someone can correct me if wrong.