As a father I like the idea of being able to leave my kids at a computer or TV without having to continually monitor their activities.
As an adult, I don't really give a shit about your children. They are your responsibility. What you feel is appropriate for your children should never affect what is on my TV. If you feel something on TV is inappropriate for your children, you can censor it yourself by turning off the TV. If I feel that something on TV has been ruined by censorship, I can't undo the censorship.
These airwaves are for the public use. Want to drop the f-/n-/q-bomb? Start up your own pay channel and go nuts.
And why do you get to decide which sets of syllables are ok, and which are forbidden? How about if you want to control the content YOU start up your own pay channel and go nuts.
Either you are in the business to make tools for smart, tech-savvy people (see Linux) or you are in the business for the general population (See Microsoft). Depends how do you want to measure success, I guess.
See, that I can agree with.
I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?
Organization. Give each desktop a purpose, and you can switch between tasks much easier. Say I have a bunch of PDFs open on one desktop and I get a notification that a download has completed. I don't have to search around for whatever window in my task bar. I just go to the torrent desktop and it has the client right there and a terminal open in the relevant directory where i left it.
I don't know how people can get along without this, minimizing and maximizing all the time, just letting windows pile up, or even closing apps. With virtual desktops I can come back to a project days later, after all sorts of casual computer use, and pick right up where I left off.
Though I think you meant an proton/neutron and a neutrino of the right energy meeting at exactly the same time since we're talking about radioactive decay.
This result is based on the decay rate of manganese-54, which is either +/-beta decay. So it's either a neutron decaying to a proton, electron and an antineutrino, or a proton decaying to a neutron, positron and a neutrino. In reverse you'd need all 3 particles.
I think you're misapprehending the controversy here. One side says "This data shows that neutrinos affect radioactive decay, which is a problem for physics", the other says "That data doesn't show what you think it does, so there's no problem for physics". Nobody except you is saying "neutrinos affect radioactive decay, but it's not a problem for physics".
Roughly 2% of computer users might agree with you. The others don't. OK, I just threw in some numbers, but the reality remains: a much larger percentage of people prefer Windows-like Desktop Manager looks over the (wide area of) available Linux Desktop manager(s).
Popularity has nothing to do with quality. For instance, McDonalds, Taylor Swift, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
If you simply go ahead and say "Because they don't know any better" - then you already lost the war with Windows.
There is no war with Windows. The only goal is to make the best operating system possible.
Not once did they take into consideration that maybe, and I say maybe Windows Desktop manager simply looks better. More polish, better paint, nicer fonts (oh yes, that again!), ease of use, perhaps a mix of all the above, can't really say.
Sure they did. Which is why they created Compiz. It's also why every window manager or desktop environment out there has extensive theming abilities. Compare W7 to something like this, Enlightenment wins hands down.
Out of all this pile of computer users, a very low percentage are technical enough or interested enough to care about the Linux Window Manager's superiority. Roughly, they don't give a rat's ass on that.
There's a phrase for this, "casting pearls before swine".
And Linux window managers rarely provide "the pretty" - they provide the "not unbearably ugly" interface instead.
That's simply not the case. I've had numerous comments, from artsy female types even, about how nice my Cthulhain themed Fluxbox desktop looks. Now they'd never be able to use it, but it's certainly not ugly.
Tell you what. Get a few screenshots of default desktops that appear right after an OS finishes installing. Say, for Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Ubuntu, RHEL, Slackware, Debian, MacOS X, Solaris, etc., etc
Sure, if you compare mostly server distros to desktop windows you'll see the trend you expect. Throw in stuff like Mint, or Ubuntu Studio, and you'll see different results.
I'd say a Windows 7-like interface will only bring advantages to Linux. Maybe convince some undecided people to switch? Maybe convince me to use my now retired secondary desktop for basic tasks (browsing, music, movies) and give my gaming rig a rest every now and then?
If it looks like Windows but can't run Windows apps, it's just a crappy crippled version of Windows. If it looks different from Windows, then people start getting interested. Showing off the advanced theming and other window manager functions (virtual desktops) is a great way of getting people interested in trying something different.
The fact that this argument keeps coming up is proof that it's not an acceptable usage now. I sure as hell don't accept it. The phrase "begs the question" is more useful as a logical fallacy than it is as a synonym for "raises the question". That's the only argument that matters.
Did you even read the pages you linked to? I'll quote (emphasis mine):
More recently, "to beg the question" has been used by some to mean the same as "to raise the question": for example, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question- how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Using the term in this way has been deemed to be incorrect by usage commentators
2. to invite the (following) question. (This reinterpretation of beg the question is incorrect but is currently in widespread use.)
The sense "raise or prompt a question" came about by misunderstanding of the meaning of the expression, possibly by confusion with beg to differ, and is proscribed (denounced) by some usage guides.
In any case, whether the improper use of the phrase is more common than the proper use of the phrase is irrelevant. That just means ignorance is widespread.
for example, there was a time when a foregone conclusion was one that was so unlikely you may as well not think about it
When was that? AFAIK, "Foregone conclusion" comes from Othello, where it means not "unlikely conclusion" but a conclusion that already happened. Not quite the modern sense of "predetermined conclusion", but pretty close.
The release of a neutrino is the same as the absorption of an anti-neutrino and vice versa. Ergo, it should be expected that variations in total numbers of neutrinos of the specific energy linked to that specific type of decay event would result in a change in the number of decay events recorded
The chances of a neutron encountering an electron and a neutrino of exactly the proper energy at exactly the same time are vanishingly small.
We also already know that what appears random is often the result of never being able to have enough data and never being able to make the step sizes infinitely small in the calculations; that randomness, per-se, is actually pretty rare in nature.
Bell's theorem tells us that quantum randomness cannot be explained by a lack of information (hidden variables).
Indeed, randomness would seem to violate the requirement that information cannot be created or destroyed.
Where do you get that idea? There is no law of conservation of information. We know that the entropy of the universe always increases. Therefore the information in the universe also increases.
If you don't see the problem and highly trained theoretical physicists do, you'd be better off asking them where the problem is rather than declaring them wrong.
Radioactive decay is not constant, it's random. What's constant is the probability that any given radionuclide will decay in a given unit of time. We only see constants like the half life come up because statistical effects smooth out the quantum randomness.
Moreover, all hardware must be in production and unmodified
That's an odd requirement. IMO a team that could design and build their own hardware that's more efficient than off the shelf hardware should be encouraged to do so.
Well, the main thing is that it was a "spectacle film". That's an almost unheard-of genre, especially nowadays. The whole point of that genre is an archetypal storyline and a huge focus on scenery and special effects.
Uh, what? Aren't almost all Hollywood movies special effects bonanzas with archetypal (cliched) plots?
Pretty much no chain restaurant serves good burgers. They deal in economies of scale and name recognition, not quality food.
The best burger you can eat will be made at home over a charcoal grill. Failing that, a hole in the wall burger joint (the older the better) will beat any chain restaurant. And please, don't order it cooked past medium.
College is not supposed to be vocational training. College ensures a good foundation, and hopefully some work ethic and study skills. Nobody comes out of college knowing everything they need to do their job. They come out of college knowing everything they need to be readily trained.
Penrose is a physicist, not a neurobiologist so his theories on consciousness should be taken with a large grain of salt. Suffice it to say, there's absolutely no reason to believe that human intelligence isn't subject to the incompleteness theorem. In fact, Godel's second theorem states that any formal system is either incomplete or inconsistent. Every mind I have ever encountered is both.
McCandless got exactly what he wanted. He wanted a visceral wilderness experience that taught him what life was all about. He learned that lesson pretty well.
Slashdot Mirror
As a father I like the idea of being able to leave my kids at a computer or TV without having to continually monitor their activities.
As an adult, I don't really give a shit about your children. They are your responsibility. What you feel is appropriate for your children should never affect what is on my TV. If you feel something on TV is inappropriate for your children, you can censor it yourself by turning off the TV. If I feel that something on TV has been ruined by censorship, I can't undo the censorship.
These airwaves are for the public use. Want to drop the f-/n-/q-bomb? Start up your own pay channel and go nuts.
And why do you get to decide which sets of syllables are ok, and which are forbidden? How about if you want to control the content YOU start up your own pay channel and go nuts.
BSD is 100% GPL compatible
Tell that to Theo.
Either you are in the business to make tools for smart, tech-savvy people (see Linux) or you are in the business for the general population (See Microsoft). Depends how do you want to measure success, I guess.
See, that I can agree with.
I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?
Organization. Give each desktop a purpose, and you can switch between tasks much easier. Say I have a bunch of PDFs open on one desktop and I get a notification that a download has completed. I don't have to search around for whatever window in my task bar. I just go to the torrent desktop and it has the client right there and a terminal open in the relevant directory where i left it.
I don't know how people can get along without this, minimizing and maximizing all the time, just letting windows pile up, or even closing apps. With virtual desktops I can come back to a project days later, after all sorts of casual computer use, and pick right up where I left off.
Though I think you meant an proton/neutron and a neutrino of the right energy meeting at exactly the same time since we're talking about radioactive decay.
This result is based on the decay rate of manganese-54, which is either +/-beta decay. So it's either a neutron decaying to a proton, electron and an antineutrino, or a proton decaying to a neutron, positron and a neutrino. In reverse you'd need all 3 particles.
I think you're misapprehending the controversy here. One side says "This data shows that neutrinos affect radioactive decay, which is a problem for physics", the other says "That data doesn't show what you think it does, so there's no problem for physics". Nobody except you is saying "neutrinos affect radioactive decay, but it's not a problem for physics".
Roughly 2% of computer users might agree with you. The others don't.
OK, I just threw in some numbers, but the reality remains: a much larger percentage of people prefer Windows-like Desktop Manager looks over the (wide area of) available Linux Desktop manager(s).
Popularity has nothing to do with quality. For instance, McDonalds, Taylor Swift, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
If you simply go ahead and say "Because they don't know any better" - then you already lost the war with Windows.
There is no war with Windows. The only goal is to make the best operating system possible.
Not once did they take into consideration that maybe, and I say maybe Windows Desktop manager simply looks better. More polish, better paint, nicer fonts (oh yes, that again!), ease of use, perhaps a mix of all the above, can't really say.
Sure they did. Which is why they created Compiz. It's also why every window manager or desktop environment out there has extensive theming abilities. Compare W7 to something like this, Enlightenment wins hands down.
Out of all this pile of computer users, a very low percentage are technical enough or interested enough to care about the Linux Window Manager's superiority. Roughly, they don't give a rat's ass on that.
There's a phrase for this, "casting pearls before swine".
And Linux window managers rarely provide "the pretty" - they provide the "not unbearably ugly" interface instead.
That's simply not the case. I've had numerous comments, from artsy female types even, about how nice my Cthulhain themed Fluxbox desktop looks. Now they'd never be able to use it, but it's certainly not ugly.
Tell you what. Get a few screenshots of default desktops that appear right after an OS finishes installing. Say, for Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Ubuntu, RHEL, Slackware, Debian, MacOS X, Solaris, etc., etc
Sure, if you compare mostly server distros to desktop windows you'll see the trend you expect. Throw in stuff like Mint, or Ubuntu Studio, and you'll see different results.
I'd say a Windows 7-like interface will only bring advantages to Linux. Maybe convince some undecided people to switch? Maybe convince me to use my now retired secondary desktop for basic tasks (browsing, music, movies) and give my gaming rig a rest every now and then?
If it looks like Windows but can't run Windows apps, it's just a crappy crippled version of Windows. If it looks different from Windows, then people start getting interested. Showing off the advanced theming and other window manager functions (virtual desktops) is a great way of getting people interested in trying something different.
The fact that this argument keeps coming up is proof that it's not an acceptable usage now. I sure as hell don't accept it. The phrase "begs the question" is more useful as a logical fallacy than it is as a synonym for "raises the question". That's the only argument that matters.
Did you even read the pages you linked to? I'll quote (emphasis mine):
In any case, whether the improper use of the phrase is more common than the proper use of the phrase is irrelevant. That just means ignorance is widespread.
for example, there was a time when a foregone conclusion was one that was so unlikely you may as well not think about it
When was that? AFAIK, "Foregone conclusion" comes from Othello, where it means not "unlikely conclusion" but a conclusion that already happened. Not quite the modern sense of "predetermined conclusion", but pretty close.
The release of a neutrino is the same as the absorption of an anti-neutrino and vice versa. Ergo, it should be expected that variations in total numbers of neutrinos of the specific energy linked to that specific type of decay event would result in a change in the number of decay events recorded
The chances of a neutron encountering an electron and a neutrino of exactly the proper energy at exactly the same time are vanishingly small.
We also already know that what appears random is often the result of never being able to have enough data and never being able to make the step sizes infinitely small in the calculations; that randomness, per-se, is actually pretty rare in nature.
Bell's theorem tells us that quantum randomness cannot be explained by a lack of information (hidden variables).
Indeed, randomness would seem to violate the requirement that information cannot be created or destroyed.
Where do you get that idea? There is no law of conservation of information. We know that the entropy of the universe always increases. Therefore the information in the universe also increases.
If you don't see the problem and highly trained theoretical physicists do, you'd be better off asking them where the problem is rather than declaring them wrong.
Is a fucking asshole.
Radioactive decay is not constant, it's random. What's constant is the probability that any given radionuclide will decay in a given unit of time. We only see constants like the half life come up because statistical effects smooth out the quantum randomness.
Okay, so, as a citizen of California
Don't you mean "subject"?
Moreover, all hardware must be in production and unmodified
That's an odd requirement. IMO a team that could design and build their own hardware that's more efficient than off the shelf hardware should be encouraged to do so.
Well, the main thing is that it was a "spectacle film". That's an almost unheard-of genre, especially nowadays. The whole point of that genre is an archetypal storyline and a huge focus on scenery and special effects.
Uh, what? Aren't almost all Hollywood movies special effects bonanzas with archetypal (cliched) plots?
It was about as suspenseful and thought provoking as a fireworks show.
That's exactly what I expected when I went to see it, that's exactly what I got. It's nothing more than audio-visual spectacle, and that's OK.
ARM would get you better performance per watt. Atoms only matter because they're x86.
Just because people run Windows out of the box and have no idea they are harboring an orgy of botnets is it fair to call them criminals.
Yes, using technology you don't understand and causing others harm in the process is negligence.
Pretty much no chain restaurant serves good burgers. They deal in economies of scale and name recognition, not quality food.
The best burger you can eat will be made at home over a charcoal grill. Failing that, a hole in the wall burger joint (the older the better) will beat any chain restaurant. And please, don't order it cooked past medium.
OH-YEAAAAHHH!!!
Oh... no...
I doubt they actually hold to a model at all. Rather they just respond to the survey with whatever sounds nicest to them at the time.
College is not supposed to be vocational training. College ensures a good foundation, and hopefully some work ethic and study skills. Nobody comes out of college knowing everything they need to do their job. They come out of college knowing everything they need to be readily trained.
Why can't you use gcc-2.95.3 on Linux?
Penrose is a physicist, not a neurobiologist so his theories on consciousness should be taken with a large grain of salt. Suffice it to say, there's absolutely no reason to believe that human intelligence isn't subject to the incompleteness theorem. In fact, Godel's second theorem states that any formal system is either incomplete or inconsistent. Every mind I have ever encountered is both.
McCandless got exactly what he wanted. He wanted a visceral wilderness experience that taught him what life was all about. He learned that lesson pretty well.