Except that multi-window also means you can hide the controls you aren't using, and allocate maximum screen real estate to the image you're working on. But I can't argue with letting users choose.
The high end of just about every market is ruled by enthusiasts, and their demands often have a lot more to do with how they choose to distinguish themselves from the masses than any objective need for performance. It's the same in CPUs, cars, wine... you name it.
I love 'em, though. They help keep things cheap behind the wave where "good enough" is good enough (and better all the time).
I've always noticed a kind of cultural difference in this respect between people who came up through the Windows vs. the UNIX/Linux worlds. Generally, the former like their apps monolithic and full-screen, whereas the latter prefer to have multiple windows open, each just large enough to do the job. E.g., my GF, an unrepentant Windows user, runs just about everything full-screen, regardless of how little real estate the contents of the window might consume. She uses PS a lot, and to her GIMP looks very fragmented and confusing. I, on the other hand, find that GIMP's multiple windows fits my thought process very well, and consider PS to be overwrought and clunky. To each their own, I suppose...
I imagine that the license would come bundled with the proprietary closed-source operating system of your choice, at no additional cost (premium versions only).
True, but companies don't always (or even often) act rationally in the "big picture". When the HR director cuts the coffee, (s)he gets to point to the savings at the end of the year and justify a bigger bonus. There's no penalty for any productivity lost due to that decision, because this is either invisible at the corporate level or is someone else's (e.g., the IT director, project managers) problem.
[courtesy of the Gibberish Generator: I ran your gibberish through their Physics generator which might as well be whatever the fuck you were blathering about.]
Heh heh... Sorry. I guess I shouldn't have said "ribonucleotide" in a science thread?
With all due respect to the achievements heralded in the Wired article, the scientific paper that most blew me away in 2009 was Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions by Powner et.al. in the 14 May 2009 issue of Nature. The authors demonstrated an efficient synthesis of a phosphorylated ribonucleotide under mild conditions using only a small number of simple molecules likely to have been present in the "pre-biotic soup" of early Earth. The reaction is so facile that it would be surprising if it didn't occur given the presence of these molecules (cyanimide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde, and inorganic phosphate). Because the products are activated ribonucleotides, they would have readily polymerized into something like RNA and quite probably the first self-replicating molecule.
To me this was one of the biggest "missing links" in the story of how life might have arisen from simple organic molecules, and that scenario now seems like a slam-dunk. The rest, as they say, is history...
I had that thought also, and was looking out here for the usual conservative reasoning that since only "liberals" are concerned with energy efficiency, this somehow represents a signature failure of the liberal intellectual elite. Thankfully, almost all of the discussion here is in a practical, engineering-oriented vein, and I can leave quietly without getting too disgusted.
Releasing the exploit could backfire, though, if it fails to spread widely. From a FUD point of view it's better just to announce that it exists (whether or not it actually does), but won't be released just now because of the author's new-found ethics.
I say bring it on. I'll give the author my IP address if that makes it any easier.
Exactly - I don't see the novelty here. I've run Linux predominently for about 15 years, and yes, I did get rooted once (and reinstalled), maybe 10 years ago. If you can get your code installed on a machine with root privileges, then you potentially own that machine, regardless of the OS.
The real issue isn't whether a machine can be infected, though; it's about the ease of contagion. Billions of dollars have been needing to discredit the security of Linux for quite a long time, and it would be remarkable if there weren't some serious and competent attempts made before this. If the OP is worried about the ramifications of releasing his exploit into the Linux wild, is it because he thinks that the infection will become widespread, or afraid that it won't?
Scientists, schmientists. It's all a big conspiracy by liberal scientists who foolishly rely on reason and observation, renouncing all faith in our energy industry, the Republican Party, and God Himself. Don't tell me what these idiot climatologists say; they are far too tainted by having studied this stuff for much of their adult lives. When Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Palin speak, we'll finally know the truth!
Even if it's possible, it's foolish to assume it would be without major risk. E.g., heart transplants are possible, but you're not going to be jumping off the operating table and going about your day the minute the surgeon's finished. Chances are you'd be in for all kinds of health problems - including neurological ones - after the thaw, and those will just be added to the fact that you were dead -- or nearly so -- when they froze you. So this is going to require quite a committment from future generations over which you have little control. You might find that to be a risk worth taking (if the alternative is death), but your fate will be in the hands of the living.
I had a similar thought, to which I'd add: What do people think will be so awesome about "the future" that they'd go to these lengths to take a peek? Sure, there'll be some nifty gadgets that we don't have now, but I already got that by hanging around for the past 30 years with no need to risk being frozen. Under the most favorable scenario, you'd be revived, maybe get a chance to play with whatever the cool toy of the day might be, and very quickly get as bored with 2200 as you are with 2009. Your life is not going to be any more glamorous than it is now, just because it's "the future". You're not going to get to hang out with Captain Kirk or Mr. Spock. People will be going about their day-to-day business just as they do now, and they're not going to give a rat's ass about all of the meat hanging around marinading in LN2. Not unless you're the first, that is; then you're a celebrity for a week or two.
Even if you're revived, it's highly likely there will be neurological problems and other health issues that will prevent you from fully enjoying your new utopia, and make your new contemporaries wonder why they should go to the time and expense of taking care of you. Not to mention that you were most likely already dead (or nearly so) when you were frozen, so whatever cures the future may hold for your unfortunate condition will be moot.
The GUI is not as nice as that in WinZIP or WinRAR..., the installer doesn't provide the option to associate the files
Disclaimer: I'm an old fart. That said: These are (or should be) everyday file archive utilities. People are concerned about nice GUIs and "installers", which serve mainly to make them seem more weighty and valuable than they are. What, we need to be entertained now while we do something as quick and simple as building and extracting archives? Kids these days...
The idea that there's a special chemical signal for "fear in relation to criminal acts" seems to come out of absolutely nowhere.
No, it comes from somewhere: It comes from the fact that billions of dollars in federal research grants are being spewed out for anything that can be remotely tied to terrorism prevention and/or response. I can only guess how much money this particular scheme raked in.
Obviously, the rate of false positives that you'd inevitably get with something like this makes it worse than useless in a crowded airport (I wonder if they addressed that issue in their grant application?). But then, in a nation where delay, inconvenience and humiliation make people feel safer, maybe they're on to something...
The authors of the code would do well to work on their negotiating skills. Essentially they're being required to forfeit prior intellectual property as a condition of employment; some would call this "theft" in the absence of any additional consideration. I hope at the very least they have lucrative salaries and a solid employment contract, if not royalties.
You know, because MS is the first company/person ever to call something names only to embrace it later. You do know that things change right?
You can take this to the bank: MS will continue to undermine FOSS any way they can as long as they view it as a threat to their core business model. That is what successful monopolies do.
What they don't do is make capricious strategic course changes based on their mood this morning or their newly-found love for the world. Whatever Microsoft does in Open Source, you can bet that a lot of high-level people there (including the legal dept.) spent a lot of time analyzing every possible outcome. They know very well what their corporate interests are, and they are paid the Big Bucks to look out for them.
Yes, they will "embrace" FOSS, but like a domineering lover, their embrace means control.
Microsoft is a big enough organization that the left hand can have some confusion as to what the right is doing, and there could be a lot of honest intent in the MS Open Source group.
It's also likely that the MS Open Source group is diligently working without any clue about what their ultimate stategic purpose is. If the top management at Microsoft believes, as they always have up to now, that FOSS is a mortal threat to their business model, then you can bet your booty that the right hand knows very well what the left hand is doing.
It is their site, they are free to publish what they feel on it.
Not so sure about that. If they are misrepresenting the nature of their review site, and further misrepresenting what they're selling by censoring reviews, then that would seem to be a form of fraud. What you are suggesting is that fraud is legally OK if done on the property of the party that perpetrates it. IANAL, but this strikes me as an odd notion.
Just what is this mysterious stuff you call "property," if not a covenant by a government to defend your posession of something with its police and legal institutions? Or do you believe your "inalienable rights" to these services are conferred by some higher power (say, God)? If that's the case, then prayer should be sufficient to maintain them...
Slashdot Mirror
Except that multi-window also means you can hide the controls you aren't using, and allocate maximum screen real estate to the image you're working on. But I can't argue with letting users choose.
The high end of just about every market is ruled by enthusiasts, and their demands often have a lot more to do with how they choose to distinguish themselves from the masses than any objective need for performance. It's the same in CPUs, cars, wine... you name it.
I love 'em, though. They help keep things cheap behind the wave where "good enough" is good enough (and better all the time).
Even our compilers were "turbo" back then.
I've always noticed a kind of cultural difference in this respect between people who came up through the Windows vs. the UNIX/Linux worlds. Generally, the former like their apps monolithic and full-screen, whereas the latter prefer to have multiple windows open, each just large enough to do the job. E.g., my GF, an unrepentant Windows user, runs just about everything full-screen, regardless of how little real estate the contents of the window might consume. She uses PS a lot, and to her GIMP looks very fragmented and confusing. I, on the other hand, find that GIMP's multiple windows fits my thought process very well, and consider PS to be overwrought and clunky. To each their own, I suppose...
the serfs may starve, but the lords still get their due.
I imagine that the license would come bundled with the proprietary closed-source operating system of your choice, at no additional cost (premium versions only).
which was fine for terminal applications 30+ years ago.
...or when you need to get a lot of things done in a hurry and without fanfare.
True, but companies don't always (or even often) act rationally in the "big picture". When the HR director cuts the coffee, (s)he gets to point to the savings at the end of the year and justify a bigger bonus. There's no penalty for any productivity lost due to that decision, because this is either invisible at the corporate level or is someone else's (e.g., the IT director, project managers) problem.
[courtesy of the Gibberish Generator: I ran your gibberish through their Physics generator which might as well be whatever the fuck you were blathering about.]
Heh heh... Sorry. I guess I shouldn't have said "ribonucleotide" in a science thread?
With all due respect to the achievements heralded in the Wired article, the scientific paper that most blew me away in 2009 was Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions by Powner et.al. in the 14 May 2009 issue of Nature. The authors demonstrated an efficient synthesis of a phosphorylated ribonucleotide under mild conditions using only a small number of simple molecules likely to have been present in the "pre-biotic soup" of early Earth. The reaction is so facile that it would be surprising if it didn't occur given the presence of these molecules (cyanimide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde, and inorganic phosphate). Because the products are activated ribonucleotides, they would have readily polymerized into something like RNA and quite probably the first self-replicating molecule.
To me this was one of the biggest "missing links" in the story of how life might have arisen from simple organic molecules, and that scenario now seems like a slam-dunk. The rest, as they say, is history...
I had that thought also, and was looking out here for the usual conservative reasoning that since only "liberals" are concerned with energy efficiency, this somehow represents a signature failure of the liberal intellectual elite. Thankfully, almost all of the discussion here is in a practical, engineering-oriented vein, and I can leave quietly without getting too disgusted.
I'm glad I didn't have to scroll down too far to see this. They're practically magic.
Releasing the exploit could backfire, though, if it fails to spread widely. From a FUD point of view it's better just to announce that it exists (whether or not it actually does), but won't be released just now because of the author's new-found ethics.
I say bring it on. I'll give the author my IP address if that makes it any easier.
Malware can exist for any platform.
Exactly - I don't see the novelty here. I've run Linux predominently for about 15 years, and yes, I did get rooted once (and reinstalled), maybe 10 years ago. If you can get your code installed on a machine with root privileges, then you potentially own that machine, regardless of the OS.
The real issue isn't whether a machine can be infected, though; it's about the ease of contagion. Billions of dollars have been needing to discredit the security of Linux for quite a long time, and it would be remarkable if there weren't some serious and competent attempts made before this. If the OP is worried about the ramifications of releasing his exploit into the Linux wild, is it because he thinks that the infection will become widespread, or afraid that it won't?
Scientists, schmientists. It's all a big conspiracy by liberal scientists who foolishly rely on reason and observation, renouncing all faith in our energy industry, the Republican Party, and God Himself. Don't tell me what these idiot climatologists say; they are far too tainted by having studied this stuff for much of their adult lives. When Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Palin speak, we'll finally know the truth!
Even if it's possible, it's foolish to assume it would be without major risk. E.g., heart transplants are possible, but you're not going to be jumping off the operating table and going about your day the minute the surgeon's finished. Chances are you'd be in for all kinds of health problems - including neurological ones - after the thaw, and those will just be added to the fact that you were dead -- or nearly so -- when they froze you. So this is going to require quite a committment from future generations over which you have little control. You might find that to be a risk worth taking (if the alternative is death), but your fate will be in the hands of the living.
I had a similar thought, to which I'd add: What do people think will be so awesome about "the future" that they'd go to these lengths to take a peek? Sure, there'll be some nifty gadgets that we don't have now, but I already got that by hanging around for the past 30 years with no need to risk being frozen. Under the most favorable scenario, you'd be revived, maybe get a chance to play with whatever the cool toy of the day might be, and very quickly get as bored with 2200 as you are with 2009. Your life is not going to be any more glamorous than it is now, just because it's "the future". You're not going to get to hang out with Captain Kirk or Mr. Spock. People will be going about their day-to-day business just as they do now, and they're not going to give a rat's ass about all of the meat hanging around marinading in LN2. Not unless you're the first, that is; then you're a celebrity for a week or two.
Even if you're revived, it's highly likely there will be neurological problems and other health issues that will prevent you from fully enjoying your new utopia, and make your new contemporaries wonder why they should go to the time and expense of taking care of you. Not to mention that you were most likely already dead (or nearly so) when you were frozen, so whatever cures the future may hold for your unfortunate condition will be moot.
And so on, and so forth...
The GUI is not as nice as that in WinZIP or WinRAR ..., the installer doesn't provide the option to associate the files
Disclaimer: I'm an old fart. That said: These are (or should be) everyday file archive utilities. People are concerned about nice GUIs and "installers", which serve mainly to make them seem more weighty and valuable than they are. What, we need to be entertained now while we do something as quick and simple as building and extracting archives? Kids these days...
The idea that there's a special chemical signal for "fear in relation to criminal acts" seems to come out of absolutely nowhere.
No, it comes from somewhere: It comes from the fact that billions of dollars in federal research grants are being spewed out for anything that can be remotely tied to terrorism prevention and/or response. I can only guess how much money this particular scheme raked in.
Obviously, the rate of false positives that you'd inevitably get with something like this makes it worse than useless in a crowded airport (I wonder if they addressed that issue in their grant application?). But then, in a nation where delay, inconvenience and humiliation make people feel safer, maybe they're on to something...
The authors of the code would do well to work on their negotiating skills. Essentially they're being required to forfeit prior intellectual property as a condition of employment; some would call this "theft" in the absence of any additional consideration. I hope at the very least they have lucrative salaries and a solid employment contract, if not royalties.
In exchange, the original author gets a) a job, and b) the ability to work full time on the code base he's passionate about. And probably some cash.
How exactly does "a job" and "the ability to work full time" for someone else constitute compensation for something you've already created?
You know, because MS is the first company/person ever to call something names only to embrace it later. You do know that things change right?
You can take this to the bank: MS will continue to undermine FOSS any way they can as long as they view it as a threat to their core business model. That is what successful monopolies do.
What they don't do is make capricious strategic course changes based on their mood this morning or their newly-found love for the world. Whatever Microsoft does in Open Source, you can bet that a lot of high-level people there (including the legal dept.) spent a lot of time analyzing every possible outcome. They know very well what their corporate interests are, and they are paid the Big Bucks to look out for them.
Yes, they will "embrace" FOSS, but like a domineering lover, their embrace means control.
Microsoft is a big enough organization that the left hand can have some confusion as to what the right is doing, and there could be a lot of honest intent in the MS Open Source group.
It's also likely that the MS Open Source group is diligently working without any clue about what their ultimate stategic purpose is. If the top management at Microsoft believes, as they always have up to now, that FOSS is a mortal threat to their business model, then you can bet your booty that the right hand knows very well what the left hand is doing.
It is their site, they are free to publish what they feel on it.
Not so sure about that. If they are misrepresenting the nature of their review site, and further misrepresenting what they're selling by censoring reviews, then that would seem to be a form of fraud. What you are suggesting is that fraud is legally OK if done on the property of the party that perpetrates it. IANAL, but this strikes me as an odd notion.
Just what is this mysterious stuff you call "property," if not a covenant by a government to defend your posession of something with its police and legal institutions? Or do you believe your "inalienable rights" to these services are conferred by some higher power (say, God)? If that's the case, then prayer should be sufficient to maintain them...