In the early to mid 80s there were two competing paradigms for window systems. The type of which Xerox was the principle example was known as West Coast windows. The type of which perhaps MIT's Lisp Machine was the prime example was called East Coast.
The idea behind the East Coast paradigm was that you usually wanted to use all of your screen real estate for a single window. You switched between them using the system key. So for instance if you hit System and then E it would switch you to the most recently used editor window or create an editor window if one didn't exist. Hitting it again would cycle to the next window of that type.
You could still resize windows and make them overlap if you liked so it wasn't mandatory (e.g. if you needed two windows side by side to compare something you could). And windows that it didnt make sense to make full screen typically weren't (e.g. popup menus). But you usually switched between a set of full screen windows.
That paradigm influences the way I use X today. I have a function key that brings up a menu of types of windows I can choose. Each menu choice cycles through the windows of that type. Except for some space reserved for status indicators around the edges most windows take up about all of the screen. I find it very productive and highly recommend it.
I don't know why General Electric is assembling HUGE electric
generators to ship to California then. By huge I mean the only thing I saw was
the stator bar, and it was 40 feet!
Because there is a power plant that has finally wound it's way through all
the red tape and is finally under construction. I didn't say that no one was
trying to build a power plant. Only that environmentalists and others have
gotten the government to put so many roadblocks in the way that one hasn't
been succeeded in getting finished since the early 90s.
It has everything to do with it. From 1996 to 1999 demand in California grew by 12 per cent while supply only grew by 2 per cent. There hasn't been a single power plant finished since the early 90s in California. The shortfall had to be made up by purchase out of state. But buying electricity from far off places is inefficient because of transmission losses. This increases the cost.
"The current crisis is a financial one, caused by price-gouging and price wars between the various entities who make and distribute power. If the power companies hadn't pushed for wholesale energy prices to be deregulated, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in. They sat down with the governor and wrote the legislation. They have nobody to blame but themselves."
I agree they have only themselves to blame because they were in on the development of this plan up to their necks. But it is outright fraud to call it deregulation. What occurred was a restructuring of the regulatory picture. Aside of the environmental regs that have made providing for demand illegal in California the "free market" for wholesale electricity is non-existent. Under the restructuring all wholesale transactions have to occur in the "Power Exchange". All utilities have to pay the same (and highest) price in the Power Exchange for any given day. Private free market contracts are prohibited. Regulators (how is that deregulation requires regulators?) set the prices the utilities can charge the consumers.
"When I first heard about these blackouts following right on the heels of deregulation, I predicted the conservative/libertarian response was going to be "there wasn't enough deregulation." Sure enough, that's the automatic response. It'd be funny if it weren't so annoying."
Nope. Try "there wasn't any deregulation". Perhaps the People's Republic of California should try this novel concept some day. I predicted that leftists would be screaming "failure of the market" when I heard of their electric woes. It would be funny if it weren't so tyrranical.
"NPR did a good story on this yesterday."
NPR rarely does a good story on anything. They are little more than a propaganda mill for the left. It infuriates me that my tax dollars were ever used to support the pack of fools at NPR.
On comparing the complexity of software with the complexity of the law:
joker05> How ridiculous does that sound?
Except that software and law are fundamentally different. Software does not claim an comprehensive, involuntary jurisdiction. One is free to ignore badly designed software. However, one would ignore a badly designed law at one's peril. If something is to be imposed on a set of individuals without their explicit consent justice demands that those individuals be capable of understanding it and be informed of its requirements. A body of law that exceeds the understanding of those held competent under it is morally without foundation. Whether the body of law currently in use throughout these United States meets this simple requirement is left as an exercise for the reader.
Slashdot Mirror
No one would dare violate the neutrality of Belgian..er..Canadian airspace. :-)
In the early to mid 80s there were two competing paradigms for window systems. The type of which Xerox was the principle example was known as West Coast windows. The type of which perhaps MIT's Lisp Machine was the prime example was called East Coast.
The idea behind the East Coast paradigm was that you usually wanted to use all of your screen real estate for a single window. You switched between them using the system key. So for instance if you hit System and then E it would switch you to the most recently used editor window or create an editor window if one didn't exist. Hitting it again would cycle to the next window of that type.
You could still resize windows and make them overlap if you liked so it wasn't mandatory (e.g. if you needed two windows side by side to compare something you could). And windows that it didnt make sense to make full screen typically weren't (e.g. popup menus). But you usually switched between a set of full screen windows.
That paradigm influences the way I use X today. I have a function key that brings up a menu of types of windows I can choose. Each menu choice cycles through the windows of that type. Except for some space reserved for status indicators around the edges most windows take up about all of the screen. I find it very productive and highly recommend it.
Because there is a power plant that has finally wound it's way through all the red tape and is finally under construction. I didn't say that no one was trying to build a power plant. Only that environmentalists and others have gotten the government to put so many roadblocks in the way that one hasn't been succeeded in getting finished since the early 90s.
It has everything to do with it. From 1996 to 1999 demand in California grew by 12 per cent while supply only grew by 2 per cent. There hasn't been a single power plant finished since the early 90s in California. The shortfall had to be made up by purchase out of state. But buying electricity from far off places is inefficient because of transmission losses. This increases the cost.
I agree they have only themselves to blame because they were in on the development of this plan up to their necks. But it is outright fraud to call it deregulation. What occurred was a restructuring of the regulatory picture. Aside of the environmental regs that have made providing for demand illegal in California the "free market" for wholesale electricity is non-existent. Under the restructuring all wholesale transactions have to occur in the "Power Exchange". All utilities have to pay the same (and highest) price in the Power Exchange for any given day. Private free market contracts are prohibited. Regulators (how is that deregulation requires regulators?) set the prices the utilities can charge the consumers.
Nope. Try "there wasn't any deregulation". Perhaps the People's Republic of California should try this novel concept some day. I predicted that leftists would be screaming "failure of the market" when I heard of their electric woes. It would be funny if it weren't so tyrranical.
NPR rarely does a good story on anything. They are little more than a propaganda mill for the left. It infuriates me that my tax dollars were ever used to support the pack of fools at NPR.
On comparing the complexity of software with the complexity of the law:
joker05> How ridiculous does that sound?
Except that software and law are fundamentally different. Software does not
claim an comprehensive, involuntary jurisdiction. One is free to ignore badly
designed software. However, one would ignore a badly designed law at one's
peril. If something is to be imposed on a set of individuals without their
explicit consent justice demands that those individuals be capable of
understanding it and be informed of its requirements. A body of law that
exceeds the understanding of those held competent under it is morally without
foundation. Whether the body of law currently in use throughout these United
States meets this simple requirement is left as an exercise for the reader.