I still do not understand why it is so hard to have a flexible UI.
Because it creates lots of possibilities for strange interactions. Assume there are 5 optional browser elements that interact in weird ways with 1% of web elements. That creates: 32 combinations that have to be tested against web elements (or at the very least 10 pairs) and special handling for about 1/3rd (10%) of all web elements. Now assume the same odds but 25 optional elements still with a 1% chance. Then you are looking at 33.5m combinations or at the very least 300 with almost certainty of many instances of special handling required to not have "bugs" for every single web element.
Why do you think the Windows code base is so expensive?
The alternative to regular forced upgrades is a complex series of radically different standards. Ultimately product owners focused on a specific product are going to do a better job than the vast majority of users in deciding how to move their products forward.
My use case for tabs is simple. I hit media like a magazine or blog or... I click on all the links that interest me to open up tabs and create a reading list. Then I read / skim and close tabs.
I essentially though actually do not use tab groups though, one window per topic.
Lotus was one of the first companies to push icons over words ex: AmiPro ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... ). AmiPro was more powerful than Word or WordPerfect yet it came in 3rd. One reason is hard to understand icons.
I sign corporate EULAs all the time and they most certainly do have recourse. For example there are indemnification clauses. Often there are guaranteed support SLAs. There are guarantees of being able to buy engineering support and architectural support. Don't confuse what you get for $500 with what you get for $500k-$20m.
There was a factual statement made. That factual statement was false. And as an aside I didn't say the opponents were amateurs I said the opposite. But I did deal with the reality of where the center of opposition is.
They actually aren't coding to interfaces. There just aren't other free simple easy solutions that use those interfaces. There are expensive commercial solutions that use systemd interfaces however. You are being inaccurate, though I suspect accidentally.
No actually that is the problem Systemd is a process manager designed to simulate in a small on individual machines sense what cloud process managers will do in a larger sense when there is system aggregation and virtualization. You do need to follow the model. You don't get to decide to run your systems however you want and use systemd successfully. That's not a failure of systemd that's a failure of people to understand how to architect around 2015 and not 1985 hardware.
systemd started as a port to launchd over from BSD architecture to SysV. Most of your comments lack foundation. Systemd has the capabilities of launchd. As far as failure cases the people pushing systemd the most strongly are the people who run the most sophisticated date centers and cloud OS installations that run the internet. The people opposed are mainly people who manage dozens of servers and came up in the Ubuntu years post Unix. So your facts are simply off.
The problem for lurkers who are actually interested in the facts that the AC is referring to is that aiccu wants to manually decide how to handle dependencies failing to resolve. Dependency resolution is a process management function where the individual daemon isn't going to have the information to make the correction. aiccu is having trouble because it doesn't want to cooperate with the design of systemd. There is no bug here, rather a clear cut system design question: where do dependency failures get resolved.
aiccu is easy enough to modify to patch to to get it to work with systemd which is what most distributions are doing, starting with Fedora in 2010. Of course those patches could be applied upstream and this problem could go away if aiccu wanted to cooperate.
Israel has lands occupied, which don't belong tomits territory
I addressed that above, the people living in those territories view Israel as their sovereign. The Golan is either Druze or Israeli the population is enthusiastic about Israeli rule. Area-C west of the Jordan, where the Israelis live is several hundred thousands Israelis and about 60k Palestinians. The Sinai is in Egypt, no Israelis live there.
The USA has an idealogical identity and most certainly does discriminate against people who aren't part of the nation. Constant subtle pressure is applied. America even prides itself on being a melting pot. For example look at the wage discrepancy between: fluent unaccented English vs. accented English vs. monolingual non-English in the USA. Or for another example how the educational system undermines strong tribal bonds.
Jews in most nations including 1930s Germany were fully or almost fully assimilated.
Well first off in Israel individuals can't own land they can only lease it from a few agencies. Those agencies, or their Yishuv forbearers, have a long history of buying land going back to the late 19th century.
As for "conquered" everything on the planet has been conquered at some point. Stuff gets conquered and the people living their form new societies. Pretty clearly the people who live in Israel proper, Jerusalem and Area-C want to be under the rule of the Israeli government. International law allows for self determination and people living within a territory to recognize sovereigns. One can argue about Area-A, Area-B where there is no desire to recognize Israel as the government but you can't make that claim over most of Israel.
As for eviction of war victims. If you are talking about 1948 both the people who did it and the people who were evicted are dead. If you are talking about later, then of course it is forbidden. But that's not what's happening. States are free to reallocate their land to different purposes. In the USA we call that rezoning and it is routine, we don't treat it as a human rights violation.
How could countries that have strong national identities not discriminate? The whole purpose of the state is to be the agency for collective of the nation. Nations by their very nature have strong cultural and often ethnic identities. To not discriminate the state can't be the collective agency for nations.
Your language is a little biased. How about talking in terms of populations shifting in locations over time. The neighborhood my parents grew up in went from German to Irish to Jewish to Black to Puerto Rican to Mexican over the course of the last 150 years. During that time buildings were torn down and put up. We didn't call it "Mexicans razing Black and Puerto Rican homes to build Mexican settlements". Neighborhoods change ethnic composition. Within Israel areas have gone from Ashkenazi to Mizrahi and no one talks about razing homes and building settlements.
In Israel there shouldn't be any Palestinian homes. While different ethnicities of Israelis live in those homes, all homes in Israel should all be Israeli.
What you are describing as your goal is a one world government. In that sort of scenario citizenship in a particular country isn't particularly important, people don't have much loyalty to their country and people and goods travel fairly freely through the world. That's what you have with empire not a world of nation states. An empire is constructed in such a way that the effectual top government is not particularly tied to the people it governs, rather they are just resources. And because they are just resources that government wants to reduce friction caused by culture. So nationality is downplayed.
The reason people don't like that is that they want a government that is more responsive i.e. a government which agrees with them on fundamental questions about the nature of the good. You can't have both a one world government and a government that is responsive to the governed. That's the downside of your vision.
I think the point of dispute is between one aspect of the Yishuv government (the use of terror against the British) and the total proto-government that became Israel. The Yishuv used terrorism along with public pressure to counter the growing resistance to Jewish immigration from Arab states. It is equally if not more true that Israel would not have existed in 1948 without the citrus boom of the late 1920s. So one could equally say using your definition, "Israel was founded on the citrus boom". One could just as easily say "Israel was founded on Arab resistance to Jewish immigration" since that's equally as much a cause.
That's why I think the analogy is Jane's wardrobe not an individual dress. Terrorism was just a small part of what founded Israel. Sure remove terrorism and possibly the date is pushed back. But who knows maybe without terrorism the British don't feel like they are losing face, like the Yishuv more and get out sooner so they can focus on places like India and Iran.
The statement about terrorism is simply too misleading to take a minor cause and elevate it to that extent. I agree with you that terror is what sealed the deal and that likely without Israel likely is founded later. But the main causes are things like the Jews excellent organization in Agriculture, the Hebrew language movement, the Holocaust...
There wasn't just a little bit or organization there was, especially leading up to WWII a proto-state. That's why the Jews were able to fight a war because the proto-state existed. The Jewish community in Philadelphia might be able to throw some nice parades but they couldn't fight a war. Obviously as you go back further in time the Yishuv becomes more like a tribal authority and less like a proto-government. But I'd say that by the early 1920s you clearly have something which is acting in the capacity of at least local government in most areas where Jews are concentrated
I think we are having a linguistic dispute. I wouldn't object to a statement like "Israel wouldn't not have been founded in 1948 without terrorism". I would object to "Israel was founded on terrorism". That's a much broader statement.
"Jane would not have acquired that dress on Tuesday without shoplifting". Is not remotely similar to "Jane's entire wardrobe is based on what she can shoplift".
The Yishuv's weren't a full state yet but they were tribal authorities that administered local law. Its primary function was territory planning: land acquisition and agricultural settlement. That's a de-facto if not de-jure government function.
West Bank Palestinians didn't have settlers in fortified residences before they started resisting. During the 1970s and 80s you had settlement without the violence, The Palestinians violence changed the nature of the settlement process.
The Yishuv had wider popular support within Palestine. That was the point of the comparison it was a popular government with the people it governed.
As for the Holocaust... its unclear what would have happened without it. Nationalism in Eastern Europe was still picking up. Without the holocaust there might have been waves of immigration more similar to what Israel experienced from Arab countries and then later Latin America and Eastern Europe in the 1990s.
First off a vital component and founded upon are different levels. As I mentioned the founding of the State or Israel was far more dependent on clearing swamp to establish farms than terrorism.
But even if we grant the confusion The Yishuv was quite successful. The terrorism ended an unprofitable British occupation. The British were unlikely to stay much beyond the early 1950s regardless. I don't know whether the British would have eventually been indifferent to Jewish immigration as Arab nationalism became more powerful or not. Alternative history is a complicated thing.
Slashdot Mirror
They never said anything of the sort. Stop making stuff up.
Because it creates lots of possibilities for strange interactions. Assume there are 5 optional browser elements that interact in weird ways with 1% of web elements. That creates: 32 combinations that have to be tested against web elements (or at the very least 10 pairs) and special handling for about 1/3rd (10%) of all web elements. Now assume the same odds but 25 optional elements still with a 1% chance. Then you are looking at 33.5m combinations or at the very least 300 with almost certainty of many instances of special handling required to not have "bugs" for every single web element.
Why do you think the Windows code base is so expensive?
The alternative to regular forced upgrades is a complex series of radically different standards. Ultimately product owners focused on a specific product are going to do a better job than the vast majority of users in deciding how to move their products forward.
My use case for tabs is simple. I hit media like a magazine or blog or ... I click on all the links that interest me to open up tabs and create a reading list. Then I read / skim and close tabs.
I essentially though actually do not use tab groups though, one window per topic.
Lotus was one of the first companies to push icons over words ex: AmiPro ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... ). AmiPro was more powerful than Word or WordPerfect yet it came in 3rd. One reason is hard to understand icons.
I sign corporate EULAs all the time and they most certainly do have recourse. For example there are indemnification clauses. Often there are guaranteed support SLAs. There are guarantees of being able to buy engineering support and architectural support. Don't confuse what you get for $500 with what you get for $500k-$20m.
There was a factual statement made. That factual statement was false. And as an aside I didn't say the opponents were amateurs I said the opposite. But I did deal with the reality of where the center of opposition is.
They actually aren't coding to interfaces. There just aren't other free simple easy solutions that use those interfaces. There are expensive commercial solutions that use systemd interfaces however. You are being inaccurate, though I suspect accidentally.
No actually that is the problem Systemd is a process manager designed to simulate in a small on individual machines sense what cloud process managers will do in a larger sense when there is system aggregation and virtualization. You do need to follow the model. You don't get to decide to run your systems however you want and use systemd successfully. That's not a failure of systemd that's a failure of people to understand how to architect around 2015 and not 1985 hardware.
systemd started as a port to launchd over from BSD architecture to SysV. Most of your comments lack foundation. Systemd has the capabilities of launchd. As far as failure cases the people pushing systemd the most strongly are the people who run the most sophisticated date centers and cloud OS installations that run the internet. The people opposed are mainly people who manage dozens of servers and came up in the Ubuntu years post Unix. So your facts are simply off.
http://www.freedesktop.org/sof...
If it doesn't do anything interesting then just start the daemon from systemd.
The problem for lurkers who are actually interested in the facts that the AC is referring to is that aiccu wants to manually decide how to handle dependencies failing to resolve. Dependency resolution is a process management function where the individual daemon isn't going to have the information to make the correction. aiccu is having trouble because it doesn't want to cooperate with the design of systemd. There is no bug here, rather a clear cut system design question: where do dependency failures get resolved.
aiccu is easy enough to modify to patch to to get it to work with systemd which is what most distributions are doing, starting with Fedora in 2010. Of course those patches could be applied upstream and this problem could go away if aiccu wanted to cooperate.
I addressed that above, the people living in those territories view Israel as their sovereign. The Golan is either Druze or Israeli the population is enthusiastic about Israeli rule. Area-C west of the Jordan, where the Israelis live is several hundred thousands Israelis and about 60k Palestinians. The Sinai is in Egypt, no Israelis live there.
The USA has an idealogical identity and most certainly does discriminate against people who aren't part of the nation. Constant subtle pressure is applied. America even prides itself on being a melting pot. For example look at the wage discrepancy between: fluent unaccented English vs. accented English vs. monolingual non-English in the USA. Or for another example how the educational system undermines strong tribal bonds.
Jews in most nations including 1930s Germany were fully or almost fully assimilated.
Well first off in Israel individuals can't own land they can only lease it from a few agencies. Those agencies, or their Yishuv forbearers, have a long history of buying land going back to the late 19th century.
As for "conquered" everything on the planet has been conquered at some point. Stuff gets conquered and the people living their form new societies. Pretty clearly the people who live in Israel proper, Jerusalem and Area-C want to be under the rule of the Israeli government. International law allows for self determination and people living within a territory to recognize sovereigns. One can argue about Area-A, Area-B where there is no desire to recognize Israel as the government but you can't make that claim over most of Israel.
As for eviction of war victims. If you are talking about 1948 both the people who did it and the people who were evicted are dead. If you are talking about later, then of course it is forbidden. But that's not what's happening. States are free to reallocate their land to different purposes. In the USA we call that rezoning and it is routine, we don't treat it as a human rights violation.
How could countries that have strong national identities not discriminate? The whole purpose of the state is to be the agency for collective of the nation. Nations by their very nature have strong cultural and often ethnic identities. To not discriminate the state can't be the collective agency for nations.
Your language is a little biased. How about talking in terms of populations shifting in locations over time. The neighborhood my parents grew up in went from German to Irish to Jewish to Black to Puerto Rican to Mexican over the course of the last 150 years. During that time buildings were torn down and put up. We didn't call it "Mexicans razing Black and Puerto Rican homes to build Mexican settlements". Neighborhoods change ethnic composition. Within Israel areas have gone from Ashkenazi to Mizrahi and no one talks about razing homes and building settlements.
In Israel there shouldn't be any Palestinian homes. While different ethnicities of Israelis live in those homes, all homes in Israel should all be Israeli.
What you are describing as your goal is a one world government. In that sort of scenario citizenship in a particular country isn't particularly important, people don't have much loyalty to their country and people and goods travel fairly freely through the world. That's what you have with empire not a world of nation states. An empire is constructed in such a way that the effectual top government is not particularly tied to the people it governs, rather they are just resources. And because they are just resources that government wants to reduce friction caused by culture. So nationality is downplayed.
The reason people don't like that is that they want a government that is more responsive i.e. a government which agrees with them on fundamental questions about the nature of the good. You can't have both a one world government and a government that is responsive to the governed. That's the downside of your vision.
I think the point of dispute is between one aspect of the Yishuv government (the use of terror against the British) and the total proto-government that became Israel. The Yishuv used terrorism along with public pressure to counter the growing resistance to Jewish immigration from Arab states. It is equally if not more true that Israel would not have existed in 1948 without the citrus boom of the late 1920s. So one could equally say using your definition, "Israel was founded on the citrus boom". One could just as easily say "Israel was founded on Arab resistance to Jewish immigration" since that's equally as much a cause.
That's why I think the analogy is Jane's wardrobe not an individual dress. Terrorism was just a small part of what founded Israel. Sure remove terrorism and possibly the date is pushed back. But who knows maybe without terrorism the British don't feel like they are losing face, like the Yishuv more and get out sooner so they can focus on places like India and Iran.
The statement about terrorism is simply too misleading to take a minor cause and elevate it to that extent. I agree with you that terror is what sealed the deal and that likely without Israel likely is founded later. But the main causes are things like the Jews excellent organization in Agriculture, the Hebrew language movement, the Holocaust...
There wasn't just a little bit or organization there was, especially leading up to WWII a proto-state. That's why the Jews were able to fight a war because the proto-state existed. The Jewish community in Philadelphia might be able to throw some nice parades but they couldn't fight a war. Obviously as you go back further in time the Yishuv becomes more like a tribal authority and less like a proto-government. But I'd say that by the early 1920s you clearly have something which is acting in the capacity of at least local government in most areas where Jews are concentrated
I think we are having a linguistic dispute. I wouldn't object to a statement like "Israel wouldn't not have been founded in 1948 without terrorism". I would object to "Israel was founded on terrorism". That's a much broader statement.
"Jane would not have acquired that dress on Tuesday without shoplifting". Is not remotely similar to
"Jane's entire wardrobe is based on what she can shoplift".
The Yishuv's weren't a full state yet but they were tribal authorities that administered local law. Its primary function was territory planning: land acquisition and agricultural settlement. That's a de-facto if not de-jure government function.
West Bank Palestinians didn't have settlers in fortified residences before they started resisting. During the 1970s and 80s you had settlement without the violence, The Palestinians violence changed the nature of the settlement process.
The Yishuv had wider popular support within Palestine. That was the point of the comparison it was a popular government with the people it governed.
As for the Holocaust... its unclear what would have happened without it. Nationalism in Eastern Europe was still picking up. Without the holocaust there might have been waves of immigration more similar to what Israel experienced from Arab countries and then later Latin America and Eastern Europe in the 1990s.
First off a vital component and founded upon are different levels. As I mentioned the founding of the State or Israel was far more dependent on clearing swamp to establish farms than terrorism.
But even if we grant the confusion The Yishuv was quite successful. The terrorism ended an unprofitable British occupation. The British were unlikely to stay much beyond the early 1950s regardless. I don't know whether the British would have eventually been indifferent to Jewish immigration as Arab nationalism became more powerful or not. Alternative history is a complicated thing.