Perhaps the move will no longer let you share individual services data, like sharing your Google+ data but withhold your Calendar?
What does this mean? What do you mean by "share" in this context?
My bad, I missused "share" to mean
1. "harvest/aggregate to sell to 3rd parties"
2 . "share/use your calendar with your social connections just because you have more permissive setting in your Google+" (I don't know if it makes sense, I'm using neither of them).
Perhaps the move will no longer let you share individual services data, like sharing your Google+ data but withhold your Calendar? If so, would you still be considering trolls the guys at EPIC?
Installing openbox and adding XFCEpanel and widgets would not be the same as having a desktop environment, either. Installing XFCE and replacing xfwm with openbox would still be a desktop environment (XFCE).
Thanks for the explanations. I'll stop referring to the installation I use as a LXDE desktop manager and name it a Lubuntu desktop manager... Other than that, I still stand behind the statement that Lubuntu does provide a good balance between performance and desktop integration for a developer; you don't have to trust me, give it a try.
I don't have any problems with LXDE. It's just that it doesn't meet the technical definition of what is a desktop environment, but instead is a number of individual parts that when put together with a window manager, makes for a very lean gui. It is very good at what it does, it just doesn't provide all of the integrated services that a full desktop environment would provide. Of course, that is one of the reasons it is so lean.
I'm a bit confused. The origin of my confusion:
a. LXDE stands for Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment. In my direct experience using Lubuntu (and choosing Lubuntu desktop manager as the "X11 session manager" at login time), I still can see/adjust the menu bar, I can create launchers, I find that it still reacts/handles as expected the availability of updates, wireless connection/disconnection, sound volume adjustement, automount of removable media (DVD-es/USB sticks), copy/paste between applications.
b. you are mentioning the limited support in concerning all of the integrated services that a full desktop env would provide
The mismatches between our expectations may have multiple causes, but let's not (yet) get there. My question is: in the light of point b. and with what I experienced (and listed) in point a., what exactly you would be missing?
Because LXDE isn't a complete desktop environment, but instead parts, like panels, etc. It lacks a lot of the underlying communication.
Interesting... I installed Lubuntu a couple of months ago and (as a developer) I'm yet to hit a snag (and Lubuntu has LXDE as a Desktop Manager). Can you please share some of the problems you had?
Since everybody seems to concur that Kubuntu's KDE is pretty bad, which one's actually better? I'd welcome suggestions.
try lubuntu - finally something that feels human for a developer (boots and moves fast, easy to install/customize, good repos/updates - from Ubuntu. A desktop manager - LXDE - not maintained by Ubuntu)
The discovery of a planet around GJ 667C came as a surprise to the astronomers, because the entire star system has a different chemical makeup than our sun. The system has much lower abundances of heavy elements (elements heavier than hydrogen and helium), such as iron, carbon and silicon.
Good news: the density/mass of the planet may be less, thus a lower gravitation.
The bad news: the lack of carbon (which, BTW, is not that heavy) would make the planet unable to sustain life as we know it.
Other than that, with around 20-something days/year of leave entitlement, living there should be nice, because:
It takes roughly 28 days to make one orbital lap around its parent star
"The planet is around one star in a triple-star system," Vogt explained. "The other stars are pretty far away, but they would look pretty nice in the sky."
Most of those hiring out there want everything now they don't understand it takes time hands on time to hone skills. Since they don't know the technology themselves they rely on certs as a measure of competency (their competency).
Wishful thinking: they (together with their organisation?) won't last long.
The reality seems to point that they are lasting longer than one needs to find a job.
In fact, when I read a resume, I am happy to see no certificates.
Me too, the reason being: I appreciate persons that value their time (i.e. better do nothing - not even gain experience - than waste the time with the certification).
Just like how business graduates leveraged fast talking with dick wagging! And look at those guys. They get million dollar bonuses while the companies they pilot crashland into the ground and investors feel the synergy of being gang-raped and immolated.
How long until it's accurate/reliable enough to start using it on terror suspects or any other detained individual?
For the purposes, accuracy and reliability are not necessary... Don't believe me? Just step in shoes of TSA (how many terrorists did they catch?) and/or those who created/filled Guantanamo Bay (they managed to do it without gizmos).
Apple is saying 1 of 2 things, but I don't know which:
1. We created these products without enterprise in mind, like, at all. BUT, we are pretending that this oversight was actually an unconscious foresight: We meant it to be this was, so, do it our way or don't do it, but just don't complain.
2. Or, although we were aware of the enterprise IT paradigm, we purposefully decided to ignore it and do it the Apple way. Strangely, the apple way seams to be to make enterprise deployment of their products almost impossible.
Well, here's something to dispel your confusion (hint: it's 2)
The title has nothing to do with the summary, in fact the summary doesn't even comment on the title's conclusion, so what's the point of this article? The only thing I've learned from the article is that science does what it does and nothing has failed anything.
For the/.-ers, TFA exposes nothing new: "correlation is not causation". At most, TFA may be use as an example to others, less used with this truth (and "others" may include scientists).
"Stating the obvious" however is the least of the problems; the author seems to be confused (or attempting to manipulate the unaware reader): it implies studying correlations is the only method the science uses. The best excerpt that I think illustrates it (near the end of TFA, with my emphasis):
And yet, we must never forget that our causal beliefs are defined by their limitations. For too long, we've pretended that the old problem of causality can be cured by our shiny new knowledge.
Since when causal beliefs equal science? Since when science have pretensions (I thought science works, at most, with assumptions as a raw-material)? Since when causality is a problem (but the actual confusion between causality and correlation is not)?
Forget everything you know about learning... Thanks to the old system, it was easy.
Sorry, I' not going to do that... the old(er) system worked fine for me... my Uni experience was a blur made of 50% partying, 35% courses/labs and 15% exams. While I didn't graduate in the first 5%, I was for sure in the first 10%.
A pity I can't do it again (I have a mortgage to pay now).
Because of high gain in the lasing medium, short upper-state lifetimes (1–100 ps), and problems associated with construction of X-ray mirrors, X-ray lasers usually operate without any resonator.
Slashdot Mirror
My bad, I missused "share" to mean
1. "harvest/aggregate to sell to 3rd parties"
2 . "share/use your calendar with your social connections just because you have more permissive setting in your Google+" (I don't know if it makes sense, I'm using neither of them).
Clearer?
How is that a surprise? I thought that was already done.
Wow... just wow... I mean: you thought that it was already done and this is reason enough not to come as a surprise for anyone?
What on earth... why are all these trolls so angry?
Maybe it is not because Google will combine the privacy policies into a single one, but also all the users data across all its services?
Perhaps the move will no longer let you share individual services data, like sharing your Google+ data but withhold your Calendar?
If so, would you still be considering trolls the guys at EPIC?
Installing openbox and adding XFCEpanel and widgets would not be the same as having a desktop environment, either. Installing XFCE and replacing xfwm with openbox would still be a desktop environment (XFCE).
Thanks for the explanations. I'll stop referring to the installation I use as a LXDE desktop manager and name it a Lubuntu desktop manager... Other than that, I still stand behind the statement that Lubuntu does provide a good balance between performance and desktop integration for a developer; you don't have to trust me, give it a try.
I don't have any problems with LXDE. It's just that it doesn't meet the technical definition of what is a desktop environment, but instead is a number of individual parts that when put together with a window manager, makes for a very lean gui. It is very good at what it does, it just doesn't provide all of the integrated services that a full desktop environment would provide. Of course, that is one of the reasons it is so lean.
I'm a bit confused. The origin of my confusion:
a. LXDE stands for Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment. In my direct experience using Lubuntu (and choosing Lubuntu desktop manager as the "X11 session manager" at login time), I still can see/adjust the menu bar, I can create launchers, I find that it still reacts/handles as expected the availability of updates, wireless connection/disconnection, sound volume adjustement, automount of removable media (DVD-es/USB sticks), copy/paste between applications.
b. you are mentioning the limited support in concerning all of the integrated services that a full desktop env would provide
The mismatches between our expectations may have multiple causes, but let's not (yet) get there.
My question is: in the light of point b. and with what I experienced (and listed) in point a., what exactly you would be missing?
I always wonder why there isn't more made of LXDE
Because LXDE isn't a complete desktop environment, but instead parts, like panels, etc. It lacks a lot of the underlying communication.
Interesting...
I installed Lubuntu a couple of months ago and (as a developer) I'm yet to hit a snag (and Lubuntu has LXDE as a Desktop Manager).
Can you please share some of the problems you had?
Since everybody seems to concur that Kubuntu's KDE is pretty bad, which one's actually better? I'd welcome suggestions.
try lubuntu - finally something that feels human for a developer (boots and moves fast, easy to install/customize, good repos/updates - from Ubuntu. A desktop manager - LXDE - not maintained by Ubuntu)
surface gravity based on the same density as Earth ...
Goshh... I just quoted TFA saying that the abundance of heavy elements is much lower, therefore one could expect a lower density.
What if we go there? 4.5 G?
Probably less. TFA quote:
The discovery of a planet around GJ 667C came as a surprise to the astronomers, because the entire star system has a different chemical makeup than our sun. The system has much lower abundances of heavy elements (elements heavier than hydrogen and helium), such as iron, carbon and silicon.
Good news: the density/mass of the planet may be less, thus a lower gravitation.
The bad news: the lack of carbon (which, BTW, is not that heavy) would make the planet unable to sustain life as we know it.
Other than that, with around 20-something days/year of leave entitlement, living there should be nice, because:
It takes roughly 28 days to make one orbital lap around its parent star
"The planet is around one star in a triple-star system," Vogt explained. "The other stars are pretty far away, but they would look pretty nice in the sky."
Most of those hiring out there want everything now they don't understand it takes time hands on time to hone skills. Since they don't know the technology themselves they rely on certs as a measure of competency (their competency).
Wishful thinking: they (together with their organisation?) won't last long.
The reality seems to point that they are lasting longer than one needs to find a job.
In fact, when I read a resume, I am happy to see no certificates.
Me too, the reason being: I appreciate persons that value their time (i.e. better do nothing - not even gain experience - than waste the time with the certification).
Just like how business graduates leveraged fast talking with dick wagging! And look at those guys.
They get million dollar bonuses while the companies they pilot crashland into the ground and investors feel the synergy of being gang-raped and immolated.
FTFY
You still need water to brew beer.
This is going to do wonders for all the ugly people of the world
Could be... if only everybody else would wear the lenses and the ugly people control what is displayed.
How much more does the legit service cost?
Example
No pressing need for serious reforms, is there? And there is not much time left.
Left for/until what?
When Japanese do science ... they really do science !
Or... are they?
How long until it's accurate/reliable enough to start using it on terror suspects or any other detained individual?
For the purposes, accuracy and reliability are not necessary... Don't believe me? Just step in shoes of TSA (how many terrorists did they catch?) and/or those who created/filled Guantanamo Bay (they managed to do it without gizmos).
Apple is saying 1 of 2 things, but I don't know which: 1. We created these products without enterprise in mind, like, at all. BUT, we are pretending that this oversight was actually an unconscious foresight: We meant it to be this was, so, do it our way or don't do it, but just don't complain.
2. Or, although we were aware of the enterprise IT paradigm, we purposefully decided to ignore it and do it the Apple way. Strangely, the apple way seams to be to make enterprise deployment of their products almost impossible.
Well, here's something to dispel your confusion (hint: it's 2)
The title has nothing to do with the summary, in fact the summary doesn't even comment on the title's conclusion, so what's the point of this article? The only thing I've learned from the article is that science does what it does and nothing has failed anything.
For the /.-ers, TFA exposes nothing new: "correlation is not causation". At most, TFA may be use as an example to others, less used with this truth (and "others" may include scientists).
"Stating the obvious" however is the least of the problems; the author seems to be confused (or attempting to manipulate the unaware reader): it implies studying correlations is the only method the science uses. The best excerpt that I think illustrates it (near the end of TFA, with my emphasis):
And yet, we must never forget that our causal beliefs are defined by their limitations. For too long, we've pretended that the old problem of causality can be cured by our shiny new knowledge.
Since when causal beliefs equal science?
Since when science have pretensions (I thought science works, at most, with assumptions as a raw-material)?
Since when causality is a problem (but the actual confusion between causality and correlation is not)?
Hang on... is there an app for it?
Perhaps because it has the dumbest name.
Cant be much dumber than Evil... errr... I mean Evi.
Forget everything you know about learning... Thanks to the old system, it was easy.
Sorry, I' not going to do that... the old(er) system worked fine for me... my Uni experience was a blur made of 50% partying, 35% courses/labs and 15% exams. While I didn't graduate in the first 5%, I was for sure in the first 10%.
A pity I can't do it again (I have a mortgage to pay now).
Yes, a resonator is an essential feator of a laser.
No, it's not as this example demonstrates.
Even better, a quote from here:
Now they'll have the excuse they need to do to the rails what they've done to the airlines.
Eh... should I understand the public is that stupid to accept that scanners and patting-down will prevent crackers remoting into unprotected systems?