Not really. It only has crap default settings. Deactivate Nepomuk, for instance, and you'll see memory usage plummet. I'm using KDE 4.6 and it uses only ~380Mb at startup. Even running Firefox and GIMP I rarely use 1Gb of RAM. KDE is very good when properly tuned, insufferable if not.
But the replacement is a kludge for tiny screens that's a horrible mess on a desktop with a decently sized monitor. I find it's contnually covering up things I want to click on all for the sake of not 'wasting' a few pixels on a 1920x1080 monitor; it's annoying, it's ugly and it provides no benefit over the old status bar.
Your points seem to be "the space it saves is too minuscule to make any difference on my screen" and "somehow those few irrelevant pixels are where all the links I want to click reside". I'm all for silly debates, but come on. And a fixed bar would be better than that how, exactly? Maybe you don't know about a Firefox feature called "scrolling". It's actually pretty common among browsers. But the most ridiculous part abot your trolling (intentional or not) is that the status bar only appears when your hover over a link, and if said link is to be covered by its appearance, then it shifts position and appears on the right.
To sum up: you're talking out of your ass. The problems you describe cannot exist. Please shut up.
The movie butchered so many comic book back stories that it was incredibly painful to watch even after "the paint was applied."
Tell me about it. Not only this guy, but every distributor of that crap should be jailed for unleashing such an atrocity. I saw it on TV and still felt like demanding my money back.
The biggest problem with his analogy is that X-Men Origins: Wolverine was more like a Volkswagen Beetle. The "paint job" they added in post-production was all it had going for it.
Well, know me: I have switched to Chrome because FF still hasn't implemented a minimal tabs-on-title interface on Linux. That wasn't relevant back when I had a 4:3 monitor, but with a little 16:9, every tiny row makes a difference. Plus I switch tabs a lot and everything sitting on the edge of the screen is simply easier to activate, especially since I like my mice fast. It's not a huge issue, but then again FF and Chromium aren't that different right now - they're both fast enough and use similar resources, so a tiny edge is all one of them can win by.
At least I still haven't ever been fucked by Asus yet.
FTFY. Sadly, all companies screw us up in one way or another. Delivery problems, shitting on the environment, crappy products, early discontinued support etc. Intel and AMD aren't usually that bad as far as I'm aware, but then again I usually buy whatever is mainstream to avoid the kind of issues you seem to be experiencing. My condolences.
It's "do no evil", not "do not give other corporations tools for doing evil". See Android and Carrier IQ, this and a bunch of other stuff. To their credit, they have made the video available again (and release Nexus phones), but they really should use this to stop policing UMG's content on Youtube ("if UMG says our tool is not valid as a DMCA request, then we'll cut their access and let them scan for their own content and submit DMCA forms").
Quote below. TL;DR version: "Yes, we bombed Sudan and fucked the whole country up, but in the September 11 attack they only wanted to kill a bunch of people, while we killed a bunch of people to divert attention from an unrelated political scandal, which is better". The entire exchance with Chomsky does not paint Hitchens in a particularly good light, at least to me.
I have a very clear memory of the destruction of the Al-Shifa chemical plant in Khartoum on August 20 1998, and of the false claim made by the Administration that it had sought out and destroyed a nerve gas facility that was linked to Osama bin Laden's shady business empire. I wrote a series of columns in The Nation, dated October 5, October 19 and November 16, 1998.The first one of these was recirculated on the web by Salon magazine. I then wrote an expanded essay for the January 1999 issue of Vanity Fair. And the chapter in my book No One Left To Lie To, titled "Clinton's War Crimes," is a summary and digest of all the above. I quoted Tom Carnaffin, the British engineer who had helped construct the plant. I quoted the German ambassador, Werner Daum, who had recently toured it. I interviewed one of the world's leading authorities on inorganic chemistry, Professor R.J.P. Williams. I interviewed Milton Bearden, a retired CIA station chief. My conclusions, which were stated earlier and at greater length than by any of the journalists cited by Chomsky, were that the factory was a medical and pharmaceutical facility, unrelated in any way to the holdings of bin Laden, and that this could and should have been known in advance. In any case, I argued, the United States had no right to hit Sudanese territory without at least first requesting an inspection of the plant. In short, as I put it, several times and in several different ways, "only one person was killed in the rocketing of Sudan. But many more have died, and will die, because an impoverished country has lost its chief source of medicines and pesticides." As I also phrased it, the President had "acted with caprice and brutality and with a complete disregard for international law, and perhaps counted on the indifference of the press and public to a negligible society like that of Sudan." [...] But must one not also measure intention and motive? The clear intention of the September 11 death squads was to maximize civilian deaths in an area renowned for its cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic character. (The New York Yemeni community alone is "missing" some 200 members, mainly push-cart vendors in the nearby streets.) The malicious premeditation is very evident and manifest: The toll was intended to be very much higher than it was. And I believe I have already pointed out that the cruise missiles fired at Sudan were not crammed with terrified civilian kidnap victims. I do not therefore think it can be argued that the hasty, politicized and wicked decision to hit the Al-Shifa plant can be characterized as directly homicidal in quite the same way. And I don't think anyone will be able to accuse me of euphemizing the matter.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 8:22)
Seems to me like it allows you to lay down with mankind, but in a different way than with womankind. Maybe it's a tip about sexual positions. Maybe it's a warning that you should save either anal or oral just for your guy pals, so they can feel special. Maybe it's just a warning that you shouldn't drill a hole in a guy's perineum in order to emulate vaginal sex, because it was a bit too fatal.
Also, in Brazil, IE's market share is now about 30% from 50% in September. XP is still huge here, IE8 is still crap and Google is running TV ads for Chrome, so it went from 29% to 44%. Might this have something to do with it?
it's a rape victim's fault for wearing a skimpy dress and a collateral damage victim's fault for being too close to where a bomb fell.
If said girl likes to date known abusers/rapists and if the collateral damage victim likes to go jogging through warzones, then your analogy makes sense. I was talkiing about the abuse inflicted by being a jerk, not raping or killing. I thought that much was obvious. And I still do.
Just to clarify, your point was women like jerks because they are jerks, but they should stop being jerks when convenient. And that we shouldn't advise those women to modify their behaviour because it's arguably somewhat instictive. Well, so is rape, if you want to play disproportinate analogies. My point is that crap comes your way when you act hedonistically on impulses doesn't go away with excuses like "well, it was somewhat instinctive", so if you want to avoid X, you simply don't chase after nor select X when offered. Saying "well, but I want X" will immediatelly prompt "then shut up about it and take the consequences". Remember: crazy is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
Stop dating people you're attracted to? Really, is that your suggestion?
It is mine. Either that of "shut up and take the abuse". But "caveat emptor" sounds less assy. What you're saying is women like jerks and therefore should be able to date jerks without them being such jerks. See the problem with that statement? They also should be able to eat heaps of chocolate without getting fat and to buy tons of fashionable accessories without spending all their money. That's great and I myself often wish I didn't have to choose between what I like and what is not stupid to do, but life doesn't spoil us like that, so you have to wise up at some point and listen to the Rolling Stones instead of your fickle urges.
(1) and (2) represent very problematic views about how you should be taught and sponsored by a filtering agent before you can have your say. (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are moronic wildcards based on technicalities that most "recognized news entities" from (1) disregard completely. I didn't read the original "article" and maybe it was just something along the lines of "yo dawg, I heard he lieks fags so fag his ass lol he suckz0rz b/c he's fag so fag he licks balls" and therefore borderline indefensible. Still, the reasons provided for stripping someone of a contitutional right seem, at the very least, short sighted, and at the most, incredibly idiotic.
As a whole, it's impressive that we can build such a thing. It's equally impressive that the number one reason for such an advanced piece of technology is so people can virtually shoot the current unfashionable eastern europeans by using more polygons.
I must have missed the article about the government forcing/nudging/encouraging people to do triple-X, and refusing to give money to people who don't. Interesting.
I've learned quite early in my life, comparing the image of a Big Mac to the Big Mac I've been given at a McDonald's, that "for demonstrative purposes only" (and why else would you have a fucking picture is not for demonstration, you marketing morons? Are you afraid someone will get confused and actually try to buy the picture, thinking it is itself the functional product?) means "lie". Every single time.
I didn't know Amnesia had been released for Linux. Damn, I bought it via Steam only a week ago. I did get a 75% discount that wasn't available anywhere else, though.
you say "we found file X, and file X belongs to the copyright holder, and I am authorized to act in their behalf". If you are not authorized to act, then it is perjury.
Actually, no. If you know you are not authorized to act, that it isn't file X ou that file X belongs to the copyright holder, then it is perjury. That's his point, I believe. If you don't really know for sure that you're right, but you strongly suspect you are, then it's fair game. Remember perjury is only committed if you know for certain that you feeding false information as a lie is only a lie if you know it not to be true. So a mistake (or a "mistake") cannot be called perjury.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. It only has crap default settings. Deactivate Nepomuk, for instance, and you'll see memory usage plummet. I'm using KDE 4.6 and it uses only ~380Mb at startup. Even running Firefox and GIMP I rarely use 1Gb of RAM. KDE is very good when properly tuned, insufferable if not.
If you're doing it for a hobby, dude, get a better fucking hobby.
Arguably, any hobby that involves fucking is better.
I don't care, as long as the Potrzebie is also cromulent.
But the replacement is a kludge for tiny screens that's a horrible mess on a desktop with a decently sized monitor. I find it's contnually covering up things I want to click on all for the sake of not 'wasting' a few pixels on a 1920x1080 monitor; it's annoying, it's ugly and it provides no benefit over the old status bar.
Your points seem to be "the space it saves is too minuscule to make any difference on my screen" and "somehow those few irrelevant pixels are where all the links I want to click reside". I'm all for silly debates, but come on. And a fixed bar would be better than that how, exactly? Maybe you don't know about a Firefox feature called "scrolling". It's actually pretty common among browsers. But the most ridiculous part abot your trolling (intentional or not) is that the status bar only appears when your hover over a link, and if said link is to be covered by its appearance, then it shifts position and appears on the right.
To sum up: you're talking out of your ass. The problems you describe cannot exist. Please shut up.
The movie butchered so many comic book back stories that it was incredibly painful to watch even after "the paint was applied."
Tell me about it. Not only this guy, but every distributor of that crap should be jailed for unleashing such an atrocity. I saw it on TV and still felt like demanding my money back.
The biggest problem with his analogy is that X-Men Origins: Wolverine was more like a Volkswagen Beetle. The "paint job" they added in post-production was all it had going for it.
Well, know me: I have switched to Chrome because FF still hasn't implemented a minimal tabs-on-title interface on Linux. That wasn't relevant back when I had a 4:3 monitor, but with a little 16:9, every tiny row makes a difference. Plus I switch tabs a lot and everything sitting on the edge of the screen is simply easier to activate, especially since I like my mice fast. It's not a huge issue, but then again FF and Chromium aren't that different right now - they're both fast enough and use similar resources, so a tiny edge is all one of them can win by.
At least I still haven't ever been fucked by Asus yet.
FTFY. Sadly, all companies screw us up in one way or another. Delivery problems, shitting on the environment, crappy products, early discontinued support etc. Intel and AMD aren't usually that bad as far as I'm aware, but then again I usually buy whatever is mainstream to avoid the kind of issues you seem to be experiencing. My condolences.
It's "do no evil", not "do not give other corporations tools for doing evil". See Android and Carrier IQ, this and a bunch of other stuff. To their credit, they have made the video available again (and release Nexus phones), but they really should use this to stop policing UMG's content on Youtube ("if UMG says our tool is not valid as a DMCA request, then we'll cut their access and let them scan for their own content and submit DMCA forms").
Yeah, that's what the catholic church keeps repeating, too.
Quote below. TL;DR version: "Yes, we bombed Sudan and fucked the whole country up, but in the September 11 attack they only wanted to kill a bunch of people, while we killed a bunch of people to divert attention from an unrelated political scandal, which is better". The entire exchance with Chomsky does not paint Hitchens in a particularly good light, at least to me.
I have a very clear memory of the destruction of the Al-Shifa chemical plant in Khartoum on August 20 1998, and of the false claim made by the Administration that it had sought out and destroyed a nerve gas facility that was linked to Osama bin Laden's shady business empire. I wrote a series of columns in The Nation, dated October 5, October 19 and November 16, 1998.The first one of these was recirculated on the web by Salon magazine. I then wrote an expanded essay for the January 1999 issue of Vanity Fair. And the chapter in my book No One Left To Lie To, titled "Clinton's War Crimes," is a summary and digest of all the above. I quoted Tom Carnaffin, the British engineer who had helped construct the plant. I quoted the German ambassador, Werner Daum, who had recently toured it. I interviewed one of the world's leading authorities on inorganic chemistry, Professor R.J.P. Williams. I interviewed Milton Bearden, a retired CIA station chief. My conclusions, which were stated earlier and at greater length than by any of the journalists cited by Chomsky, were that the factory was a medical and pharmaceutical facility, unrelated in any way to the holdings of bin Laden, and that this could and should have been known in advance. In any case, I argued, the United States had no right to hit Sudanese territory without at least first requesting an inspection of the plant. In short, as I put it, several times and in several different ways, "only one person was killed in the rocketing of Sudan. But many more have died, and will die, because an impoverished country has lost its chief source of medicines and pesticides." As I also phrased it, the President had "acted with caprice and brutality and with a complete disregard for international law, and perhaps counted on the indifference of the press and public to a negligible society like that of Sudan." [...] But must one not also measure intention and motive? The clear intention of the September 11 death squads was to maximize civilian deaths in an area renowned for its cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic character. (The New York Yemeni community alone is "missing" some 200 members, mainly push-cart vendors in the nearby streets.) The malicious premeditation is very evident and manifest: The toll was intended to be very much higher than it was. And I believe I have already pointed out that the cruise missiles fired at Sudan were not crammed with terrified civilian kidnap victims. I do not therefore think it can be argued that the hasty, politicized and wicked decision to hit the Al-Shifa plant can be characterized as directly homicidal in quite the same way. And I don't think anyone will be able to accuse me of euphemizing the matter.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 8:22)
Seems to me like it allows you to lay down with mankind, but in a different way than with womankind. Maybe it's a tip about sexual positions. Maybe it's a warning that you should save either anal or oral just for your guy pals, so they can feel special. Maybe it's just a warning that you shouldn't drill a hole in a guy's perineum in order to emulate vaginal sex, because it was a bit too fatal.
Also, in Brazil, IE's market share is now about 30% from 50% in September. XP is still huge here, IE8 is still crap and Google is running TV ads for Chrome, so it went from 29% to 44%. Might this have something to do with it?
Everyone has the iPhone
We want to deliver services and phones that are different
Nobody will have the Nokia.
Windows Phone 7
(Unsurprinsingly)
it's a rape victim's fault for wearing a skimpy dress and a collateral damage victim's fault for being too close to where a bomb fell.
If said girl likes to date known abusers/rapists and if the collateral damage victim likes to go jogging through warzones, then your analogy makes sense. I was talkiing about the abuse inflicted by being a jerk, not raping or killing. I thought that much was obvious. And I still do.
Just to clarify, your point was women like jerks because they are jerks, but they should stop being jerks when convenient. And that we shouldn't advise those women to modify their behaviour because it's arguably somewhat instictive. Well, so is rape, if you want to play disproportinate analogies. My point is that crap comes your way when you act hedonistically on impulses doesn't go away with excuses like "well, it was somewhat instinctive", so if you want to avoid X, you simply don't chase after nor select X when offered. Saying "well, but I want X" will immediatelly prompt "then shut up about it and take the consequences". Remember: crazy is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
Stop dating people you're attracted to? Really, is that your suggestion?
It is mine. Either that of "shut up and take the abuse". But "caveat emptor" sounds less assy. What you're saying is women like jerks and therefore should be able to date jerks without them being such jerks. See the problem with that statement? They also should be able to eat heaps of chocolate without getting fat and to buy tons of fashionable accessories without spending all their money. That's great and I myself often wish I didn't have to choose between what I like and what is not stupid to do, but life doesn't spoil us like that, so you have to wise up at some point and listen to the Rolling Stones instead of your fickle urges.
(1) and (2) represent very problematic views about how you should be taught and sponsored by a filtering agent before you can have your say. (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are moronic wildcards based on technicalities that most "recognized news entities" from (1) disregard completely. I didn't read the original "article" and maybe it was just something along the lines of "yo dawg, I heard he lieks fags so fag his ass lol he suckz0rz b/c he's fag so fag he licks balls" and therefore borderline indefensible. Still, the reasons provided for stripping someone of a contitutional right seem, at the very least, short sighted, and at the most, incredibly idiotic.
As a whole, it's impressive that we can build such a thing. It's equally impressive that the number one reason for such an advanced piece of technology is so people can virtually shoot the current unfashionable eastern europeans by using more polygons.
I must have missed the article about the government forcing/nudging/encouraging people to do triple-X, and refusing to give money to people who don't. Interesting.
I'll just forward you to the documentary about it, then: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295701/
I've learned quite early in my life, comparing the image of a Big Mac to the Big Mac I've been given at a McDonald's, that "for demonstrative purposes only" (and why else would you have a fucking picture is not for demonstration, you marketing morons? Are you afraid someone will get confused and actually try to buy the picture, thinking it is itself the functional product?) means "lie". Every single time.
I didn't know Amnesia had been released for Linux. Damn, I bought it via Steam only a week ago. I did get a 75% discount that wasn't available anywhere else, though.
Solitaire! Freecell! And maybe Chromium, mostly because people mistake it for the browser when using Synaptic.
But... no intelligent person would state that they aren't feeding false information by these takedown notices
That's the thing. An intelligent person can and will use stupidity as a defense. See the tobacco industry trials for more details.
you say "we found file X, and file X belongs to the copyright holder, and I am authorized to act in their behalf". If you are not authorized to act, then it is perjury.
Actually, no. If you know you are not authorized to act, that it isn't file X ou that file X belongs to the copyright holder, then it is perjury. That's his point, I believe. If you don't really know for sure that you're right, but you strongly suspect you are, then it's fair game. Remember perjury is only committed if you know for certain that you feeding false information as a lie is only a lie if you know it not to be true. So a mistake (or a "mistake") cannot be called perjury.
They probably have lots, since they seem to have been saving so much.