Yeah, we have a Kirby, two roombas, and two Dysons (don't even ask why).
The Kirby is the all time champion for raw cleaning power, and the roombas are the worst in the same category. Dyson's in the middle somewhere, closer to the Kirby end of the spectrum.
But! The kirby and dysons won't vacuum the room for you while you are washing the dishes and cleaning the cat box. And the Kirby cannot be used except by large physically fit people (we've got two family members who can't lift it, and we originally got it because Nana could not even push it ten feet on carpet). So they are all great for 3 different use cases.
...this additional complexity increases the amount of possible errors (Intel and AMD processors have hundreds of unfixable errors that must be coded around.
"Coded around" where? I don't have any special instructions in my code to handle processor errors.
No, sorry, that was my main point, which is why I titled the post to refer to the famous aphorism "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Don't try to hijack it.
The GP said that windmills are so obscenely ugly that he's willing to fight against them being put in my backyard, where my neighbors and I damn well want them (because we, the actual local property owners, happen to like them much better than the obsolete Fukushima-style BWR nuke plant we've already got). He is explicitly rejecting my viewpoint, and that of most people in my state, and saying he will fight our wind projects because they are ugly. Read what he wrote!
Incidentally, the windmills I specifically mentioned in my post sit in beautiful mountain woodlands... not too far from from existing strip mines and coal-fired power plants, of course, since that's where the existing high voltage lines coincide with high wind potential areas - near existing Appalachian coal mines and gas wells.
Perhaps you'll be happy to know that 64 windmills won't be built in Pennsylvania because of local community groups protesting how ugly and environmentally devastating they are. What a triumph for aesthetic values!...And for Big Coal, of course, those paragons of beauty and woodland preservation.
It should be easy to "get it", they are ugly industrial plant. If we have to have them they should be kept to industrial areas (or better still out at sea). I don't want one in my back yard, or yours, or anyone else's because I can still see it. I do not even want the things spoiling other peoples areas where perhaps I shall never even go.
I've been in the vicinity of a couple dozen of them over the last two months. Huge, beautiful, majestic - those are the words I'd use to describe them. The people living on the Alleghany ridge like them much better than the grotesque, vapor belching nuclear, coal and gas facilities they also live near. Take a ride up I-99, cut over on Rt. 22 and pick up 422, turn around and go back when you hit I79. They are beautiful, and (due to their titanic mass) slow-moving and quiet.
My basement is almost a museum of water heater technology - when we moved in, there was a huge multi-fuel (coal or oil) Victorian segmented iron boiler sitting right next to a 1970s style uninsulated storage water heater.
I ripped out both (I broke a 1-ton come-along pulling the boiler up and out) and installed a state-of-the-art Aquastar on-demand gas water heater and lived with it for four years. Then I ripped that out and replaced it with a heavily insulated storage water heater.
Want to guess which one was cheapest and most efficient in real world use? Hints: I have two teenagers in the house these days, and I have my own well.
Where is a private navy going to get all that money to support something as complex and large as nuclear powered vessels?
The traditional answer is "piracy", but that's not really something that modern corporations want to be overtly involved in. The insurance costs are way too high!
You didn't use google to find out that the charge circuit needs to be periodically reset, as even iRobot admits, or the robot will convince itself the battery's dead when it actually isn't?
An expensive mistake, that I also made on my first roomba.
What I really want is a roomba that looks like a trilobite, and a scooba that looks like a snail, and a looj that actually works.
Although that link does weakly support my argument and completely destroys the arguments of the guy I was originally responding to, it's also horribly formatted. Can you read the long axis on the graph? I can't.
At the end of the day, it's a lot easier if Grandma has an OS that other family members can help her with.
Exactly why Granddad is on linux! But it never actually breaks, so that's a bonus too.
Grandma wants nothing to do with computers, she says she's gotten along just fine without them for nearly a hundred years and sees no need for them in her life.
Countless? Really? So countless they can't even be linked? What was that about "hype" again?
And by the way, 2.2 > 2 so I fail to see exactly how your statement proves human populations won't increase once they "gain a stable agriculture system".
Speaking as a amateur historian, I would say human populations have always increased until they catastrophically crashed - generally due to famine/environmental destruction (Easter Island) war (Bhatu Khan) or plague (the Black Death). The only thing that has shown any influence on this basic fact of life is education, not agriculture. If you educate a population their birth rate goes down, as illustrated in Israel where poorly educated Palestinians continue to outbreed well educated Israelis irregardless of food supplies.
And then we can pack every inch of available terrestrial space with human flesh, reaching to the skies in vast arcologies, wiping out all species that cannot be farmed and eaten... and wait for the inevitable plague. Great solution!
Trading labor for lodging is perfectly legal, at least in the States around here, and under US Federal law.
The City of Philadelphia trades lodging (in historic homes owned by the city) for caretaker and maintenance work, for example.
The super-rich hire live-in nannies for room and board - the nannies get to live in surroundings they could not otherwise afford, eating food they could not otherwise afford, and hope to meet rich men looking for wives or movie producers looking for starlets.
When I was younger I took a job as house-sitter for a super-wealthy family - I got no pay, just total access to their vast mansion and grounds, including an indoor swimming pool and three well-stocked kitchens. It's not illegal, and it was a good deal for everyone involved.
Try dot-net-nuke if you want to see something that makes PHP look like the land of sweetness and light.
I can't help but be amused by the PHP haters, though. It's like the nerd version of the stereotypical jocks in high school who would get so upset that the fat kid had a pretty girlfriend. How dare those profitable, successful darlings of the web use PHP! PHP is ugly! And wears glasses! Let's beat PHP up after school, teach that twerp a lesson.
So it's on par with COBOL and IBM/360 Assembly. That doesn't make it fun to work in.
Extremely good point. Popularity, or even usefulness, doesn't make something necessarily good.
And it's nice to see somebody make a point other than "PHP sucks because it isn't feature-identical to my flavor of Blub"... It seems like 99% of the complaints against PHP boil down to either "it isn't Java" or "PHP programmers can make a useable product faster than I can and I'm jealous".
In the United States, there are whole categories of consensual contracts entered into by adults that are completely illegal, or at least have no standing in law.
Yeah, because a language that drives most of the world's interactive sites and web commerce must be total shite, ammirite? Not functional or useful at all!
And seeing anything or being able to interact with a supposedly locked session is by defintion not locking it.
If you insist on a single solution and then use a rigorous description of that solution as your criteria for whether the problem is solved or not, that's the opposite of good software engineering practice.
Thank you, Jaques Derrida, for exhibiting the behavior I'm criticizing!
If it does not solve the problem it does not matter what you call it. You're still standing in the way of getting the job done no matter what your reasoning is.
The task is NOT "to lock the screen", the task is to prevent the computer from being used in a way that the owner doesn't want it to be used. Call it whatever the hell you want, just stop getting in the way of users, and start helping them use their machines the way they want...
I'm not sure I understand..(I'm not a gnome3 user).
Me neither, but I'll try to explain anyway.
Everything should be hidden when the screen is locked. That's the point.
That's not actually the point. The screen lock is a possible solution to a set of common problems. If you insist on a single solution and then use a rigorous description of that solution as your criteria for whether the problem is solved or not, that's the opposite of good software engineering practice. The point is to define and solve the problem, not force expectations of what the solution should look like to shape your perception of what the problem is.
In most cases, the screen lock exists to prevent other entities from pre-empting your input - for example, I have to protect my keyboard from cats and small children at home, at work I need to prevent other people from sending mail under my username or deleting my local filesystem. I won't give a damn if anyone sees a notice that says "you've got mail" or if they can turn down the volume of my speakers - in fact those are desirable features for nearly all real world users.
In some cases, though, you may also need to prevent others from accessing your output devices - for example if you are carrying on a torrid affair without your spouse's knowledge, performing industrial espionage on your employer, or surfing porn while you're supposed to be babysitting, you'll want your screen completely hidden and you'll want a "hot button" that invokes lockout of all video and audio output instantly. Most people with this use case are also going to be satisfied by a screen lock that displays prominent notifications (without content) and allows control on audio outputs. They aren't going to want to have to type a password to stop the moaning sounds from their speakers - that's not a sufficiently responsive control for them - but they may want the screen lock to automatically mute audio outs.
The least common use case is going to be people who want total input and output device lockdown - when they are away from the computer, they want audio, video and network to be totally inaccessible until they type a password. That use case is important, because it is the highest possible security setting, but almost nobody wants their download to stop when they step away from the computer, almost nobody wants to have to pull the battery out of their kid's laptop to make the music stop.
So instead of focusing on what the meaning of the phrase "screen lock" is, a good solution would probably default to total lock of all inputs and outputs (on the principle of maximum security defaults) but would allow the user to trivially permit notifications and external device controls through a simple settings panel (as well as during any configuration dialog you might provide at setup time).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, we have a Kirby, two roombas, and two Dysons (don't even ask why).
The Kirby is the all time champion for raw cleaning power, and the roombas are the worst in the same category. Dyson's in the middle somewhere, closer to the Kirby end of the spectrum.
But! The kirby and dysons won't vacuum the room for you while you are washing the dishes and cleaning the cat box. And the Kirby cannot be used except by large physically fit people (we've got two family members who can't lift it, and we originally got it because Nana could not even push it ten feet on carpet). So they are all great for 3 different use cases.
"Coded around" where? I don't have any special instructions in my code to handle processor errors.
No, sorry, that was my main point, which is why I titled the post to refer to the famous aphorism "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Don't try to hijack it.
The GP said that windmills are so obscenely ugly that he's willing to fight against them being put in my backyard, where my neighbors and I damn well want them (because we, the actual local property owners, happen to like them much better than the obsolete Fukushima-style BWR nuke plant we've already got). He is explicitly rejecting my viewpoint, and that of most people in my state, and saying he will fight our wind projects because they are ugly. Read what he wrote!
Incidentally, the windmills I specifically mentioned in my post sit in beautiful mountain woodlands... not too far from from existing strip mines and coal-fired power plants, of course, since that's where the existing high voltage lines coincide with high wind potential areas - near existing Appalachian coal mines and gas wells.
Perhaps you'll be happy to know that 64 windmills won't be built in Pennsylvania because of local community groups protesting how ugly and environmentally devastating they are. What a triumph for aesthetic values! ...And for Big Coal, of course, those paragons of beauty and woodland preservation.
I've been in the vicinity of a couple dozen of them over the last two months. Huge, beautiful, majestic - those are the words I'd use to describe them. The people living on the Alleghany ridge like them much better than the grotesque, vapor belching nuclear, coal and gas facilities they also live near. Take a ride up I-99, cut over on Rt. 22 and pick up 422, turn around and go back when you hit I79. They are beautiful, and (due to their titanic mass) slow-moving and quiet.
My basement is almost a museum of water heater technology - when we moved in, there was a huge multi-fuel (coal or oil) Victorian segmented iron boiler sitting right next to a 1970s style uninsulated storage water heater.
I ripped out both (I broke a 1-ton come-along pulling the boiler up and out) and installed a state-of-the-art Aquastar on-demand gas water heater and lived with it for four years. Then I ripped that out and replaced it with a heavily insulated storage water heater.
Want to guess which one was cheapest and most efficient in real world use? Hints: I have two teenagers in the house these days, and I have my own well.
Don't make on-demand water heating a golden hammer.
The traditional answer is "piracy", but that's not really something that modern corporations want to be overtly involved in. The insurance costs are way too high!
You didn't use google to find out that the charge circuit needs to be periodically reset, as even iRobot admits, or the robot will convince itself the battery's dead when it actually isn't?
An expensive mistake, that I also made on my first roomba.
What I really want is a roomba that looks like a trilobite, and a scooba that looks like a snail, and a looj that actually works.
Although that link does weakly support my argument and completely destroys the arguments of the guy I was originally responding to, it's also horribly formatted. Can you read the long axis on the graph? I can't.
Exactly why Granddad is on linux! But it never actually breaks, so that's a bonus too.
Grandma wants nothing to do with computers, she says she's gotten along just fine without them for nearly a hundred years and sees no need for them in her life.
...for the power companies, that is.
For end users who aren't physically handicapped, well, not so much.
Countless? Really? So countless they can't even be linked? What was that about "hype" again?
And by the way, 2.2 > 2 so I fail to see exactly how your statement proves human populations won't increase once they "gain a stable agriculture system".
Speaking as a amateur historian, I would say human populations have always increased until they catastrophically crashed - generally due to famine/environmental destruction (Easter Island) war (Bhatu Khan) or plague (the Black Death). The only thing that has shown any influence on this basic fact of life is education, not agriculture. If you educate a population their birth rate goes down, as illustrated in Israel where poorly educated Palestinians continue to outbreed well educated Israelis irregardless of food supplies.
And then we can pack every inch of available terrestrial space with human flesh, reaching to the skies in vast arcologies, wiping out all species that cannot be farmed and eaten... and wait for the inevitable plague. Great solution!
Wait, you put 1500 domains on GoDady?
And you've never bothered to develop an exit strategy?
I have no idea how to respond to that.
Trading labor for lodging is perfectly legal, at least in the States around here, and under US Federal law.
The City of Philadelphia trades lodging (in historic homes owned by the city) for caretaker and maintenance work, for example.
The super-rich hire live-in nannies for room and board - the nannies get to live in surroundings they could not otherwise afford, eating food they could not otherwise afford, and hope to meet rich men looking for wives or movie producers looking for starlets.
When I was younger I took a job as house-sitter for a super-wealthy family - I got no pay, just total access to their vast mansion and grounds, including an indoor swimming pool and three well-stocked kitchens. It's not illegal, and it was a good deal for everyone involved.
I anxiously await your many examples of web commerce sites "done well" that don't use PHP!
Yep, before you even posted it here.
Try dot-net-nuke if you want to see something that makes PHP look like the land of sweetness and light.
I can't help but be amused by the PHP haters, though. It's like the nerd version of the stereotypical jocks in high school who would get so upset that the fat kid had a pretty girlfriend. How dare those profitable, successful darlings of the web use PHP! PHP is ugly! And wears glasses! Let's beat PHP up after school, teach that twerp a lesson.
Extremely good point. Popularity, or even usefulness, doesn't make something necessarily good.
And it's nice to see somebody make a point other than "PHP sucks because it isn't feature-identical to my flavor of Blub"... It seems like 99% of the complaints against PHP boil down to either "it isn't Java" or "PHP programmers can make a useable product faster than I can and I'm jealous".
In the United States, there are whole categories of consensual contracts entered into by adults that are completely illegal, or at least have no standing in law.
Yeah, because a language that drives most of the world's interactive sites and web commerce must be total shite, ammirite? Not functional or useful at all!
If you insist on a single solution and then use a rigorous description of that solution as your criteria for whether the problem is solved or not, that's the opposite of good software engineering practice.
Thank you, Jaques Derrida, for exhibiting the behavior I'm criticizing!
If it does not solve the problem it does not matter what you call it. You're still standing in the way of getting the job done no matter what your reasoning is.
The task is NOT "to lock the screen", the task is to prevent the computer from being used in a way that the owner doesn't want it to be used. Call it whatever the hell you want, just stop getting in the way of users, and start helping them use their machines the way they want...
The parent contains the most basic truth of Wikipedia, which is that the owner of the most obsessive, damaged mind will always triumph in the end.
Me neither, but I'll try to explain anyway.
That's not actually the point. The screen lock is a possible solution to a set of common problems. If you insist on a single solution and then use a rigorous description of that solution as your criteria for whether the problem is solved or not, that's the opposite of good software engineering practice. The point is to define and solve the problem, not force expectations of what the solution should look like to shape your perception of what the problem is.
In most cases, the screen lock exists to prevent other entities from pre-empting your input - for example, I have to protect my keyboard from cats and small children at home, at work I need to prevent other people from sending mail under my username or deleting my local filesystem. I won't give a damn if anyone sees a notice that says "you've got mail" or if they can turn down the volume of my speakers - in fact those are desirable features for nearly all real world users.
In some cases, though, you may also need to prevent others from accessing your output devices - for example if you are carrying on a torrid affair without your spouse's knowledge, performing industrial espionage on your employer, or surfing porn while you're supposed to be babysitting, you'll want your screen completely hidden and you'll want a "hot button" that invokes lockout of all video and audio output instantly. Most people with this use case are also going to be satisfied by a screen lock that displays prominent notifications (without content) and allows control on audio outputs. They aren't going to want to have to type a password to stop the moaning sounds from their speakers - that's not a sufficiently responsive control for them - but they may want the screen lock to automatically mute audio outs.
The least common use case is going to be people who want total input and output device lockdown - when they are away from the computer, they want audio, video and network to be totally inaccessible until they type a password. That use case is important, because it is the highest possible security setting, but almost nobody wants their download to stop when they step away from the computer, almost nobody wants to have to pull the battery out of their kid's laptop to make the music stop.
So instead of focusing on what the meaning of the phrase "screen lock" is, a good solution would probably default to total lock of all inputs and outputs (on the principle of maximum security defaults) but would allow the user to trivially permit notifications and external device controls through a simple settings panel (as well as during any configuration dialog you might provide at setup time).
Neither was Schlanke Emma. You got the meta-joke!
You mean like Schlank Emma, Big Bertha, or Schwerer Gustav?