As a long time user of both OpenOffice and MS Office, I can say without a doubt that the ribbon interface is shit.
Not little shit, or even "the shit", it's a steaming pile. I will say this-Microsoft tried something new for the first time in years with Office. They thought it was intuitive and ground breaking. At least they were half right, it was something new.
It's frustrating to dig through trying to find what you want, only to find that the old, well understood Office dialogs are still there if you know how to get to them. The installation should have had a single checkbox that said "Use Classic Interface" and that be the end of it.
Maybe. There are well plotted average weight gain curves for teens and adults living varying levels of sedentary lifestyles.
I would bet a significant portion of the populace could not hit 550 pounds at any age without outside contributory factors beyond just a sedentary life.
Regardless, the fact is that there are a huge number of factors that influence weight gain beyond just what a kid stuffs in his face including metabolism, physical activity frequency/duration/activity type, genetic predisposition, chemical imbalances, etc.
Aside from exercise and food consumption, many of these factors are beyond our control. I've known very obese people who eat less than I, and very skinny people who eat much more than I. To me, neglect is only justified if the weight is causing health problems AND the mother has not sought treatment for those medical problems. For example, untreated diabetes would be neglect to me.
There was actually recently a case where a mother of a severely obese teenager was convicted of child abuse. The logic was that it was abusive for a parent to let their child eat so much that they attained a weight capable of causing life-altering side effects.
So maybe it's not illegal to be fat, but it might be illegal in your area to let your kid get too fat.
Even north koreans don't respect their government, they fear it. That is a wholly different proposition. Displacement of the North Korean government would probably cause less civilian violence than Iraq because their population is largely of the same ethnic origins. Violence in Iraq is largely sectarian, not just "terrorists" as the US government would have you believe.
However, that doesn't mean the actual act of displacing DPRK's governemnt wouldn't require violence. They are one of the most heavily armed countries in the region. Although an exact figure is not known for military spending, it's believed to be a large percentage of their GDP even in comparison to countries like Iraq and Israel.
According to UN reports post-'91, there were significant quantities of VX and mustard gas gone unaccounted for. No one doubts that the WMD's existed-only that Iraq actually had them in 2003.
They're either buried in the desert or were sold off(Iran I'm looking at you). If Iraq legitimately destroyed them, they would have freely showed UN inspectors evidence of this.
Then you likely use it for work, and as I mentioned, I don't support use of CARS program funds for purchase of work trucks at all.
Companies should bear the cost of the work they do and subsidizing the purchase of work trucks encourages inefficiencies from being corrected where possible.
On another note, if you need a full size truck for work, its unlikely any new truck of similar tow/load ratings will give you much better fuel economy.
The US debt is a double edged sword. It could sink our economy, but the more people we owe money to, the more interest they have in preventing a total economic collapse. Swift inflation would make outstanding US debts meaningless and swift deflation would prevent any payback in a reasonable time frame.
In effect, our colossal debt encourages our foreign creditors to be more forgiving. There are laws and guidance on insolvency for international corporations(UNCITRAL) but nothing for insolvent countries.
IMO the CARS program rebate shouldn't cover purchase of any type of utility vehicle including light trucks, regardless of MPG improvements.
I'm aware going from 15 MPG to 18 MPG is a tremendous improvement in relative values, but I don't support subsidization of vehicles for work purposes or irresponsible drivers. Skewing fuel economy for work vehicles encourages companies to ignore inefficiencies, resulting in much wasted fuel.
As far as I have seen, there are two types of light truck buyers. The daily commuter-I don't think subsidizing people driving trucks to work is a good idea under any circumstances. Let's keep the program in place but dangle a $4500 carrot in front of them to get them into a new 25+ mpg car and out of that 7 year old F150 they drive 60 miles a day on the freeway.
The 2nd is the rural property owner or outdoors enthusiasts. Spending taxpayer money to buy them new trucks for what will result in minimal fuel savings isn't a sensible idea either. Often times, these types of truck buyers do not put many miles on their trucks and the fuel economy savings doesn't accomplish much in the grand scheme of foreign oil dependency.
IMO, the mileage requirements are an attempt to validate a program whose thinly veiled true purpose is to stimulate auto sales and thus, auto manufacturers.
If that is the case, instead of giving outright $25B or so to the manufacturers, why not throw that money into the CARS program? The majority of it would end up in the manufacturers pockets anyway, but it has the side effect of ramping up production in half-idled plants and would have helped save some dealers from losing their franchises.
If the intent of the CARS program really was fuel efficiency(ha!), then the $1B congress allocated to it is a pittance and shows how much they really care about foreign oil dependency and air quality.
Most open source development is a symbiotic relationship between developers. Each developer builds upon others work to create an even better work, often to fill their own needs. Few developers can carry a large project alone, so in that way, each developer relies on each other developer to bring to fruition a complete software product.
Linus is right in that most OSS development is for selfish reasons, but the net effect is a benefit to the developer community as a whole because of license requirements to share. The result is that each selfish act is inherently beneficial for the community also.
I don't hate microsoft, but 20 years of watching their actions has led to great distrust. MS has fostered a industry-wide corporate culture that views OSS as broken, untrustable, risky, unsupportable, or otherwise inadequate. Microsoft contributions to OSS projects is rightfully viewed with distrust by many in the OSS community. Their modus operandi for 20 years has been embrace and extinguish, in all areas of their business.
Is it outlandish to think Microsoft makes contributions to OSS for subversion?
Simple logic implies this would not work. If the moon were closer, it would need to orbit the earth faster to keep from descending into the planet.
If it were going faster, it wouldn't be in line for an eclipse as long as it is now. If the moon were farther away from the earth, it could orbit slower which would make the eclipse last longer, but might not be a full eclipse.
I'm no astrophysicist, but it seems to me the only easy way to make a solar eclipse last longer would be for the moon to get bigger. So instead of shooting rockets to make move the moon, let's pile up all the lawyers and politicians on the moon. That should make for at least a 10 minute eclipse.
When hobbyists get interested in FPGA development, the first thing they turn to are Altera's and Xilinx's websites and look at top of the line FPGA's like the Virtex 6 LXT. The Spartan 6 is definitely a lightweight compared to the Virtex features.
A newly interested hobbyist should not be under the impression that they can spend $250 and it will have the same features.
The AC's comments are valid and noteworthy nonetheless. Just because someone understands OOP and knows 5 software languages doesn't mean hardware hacking will be easy. The skills are related, but proficiency in one does not necessarily imply aptitude for the other.
I recommend two things. First, give up the notion that FPGA development as a hobby can be done for the price you're looking for. Good development boards are a little pricy, but you will frustrate yourself with no end in sight by using a barebones development kit. The best cheap dev kit I've seen yet is the Xilinx Spartan-6 SP601 kit. It includes everything you need to get started, including Xilinx ISE design software. That should set you back about $300. The Spartan-6 is fairly anemic in features and power compared to most other new FPGA's so a careful consideration of your goals should take place before you make a purchase.
Two, get a good FPGA development book. I highly recommend "Designing with FPGAs and CPLDs". It's a really useful primer on programmable logic hardware to those who already are technically literate.
Well yes, but if the contributions are under the GPL license only, then you need copyright assignment to distribute them under other terms.
So yeah, if a contributor licensed their contributions under the GPL and BSD licenses, you could use their works in your closed source product. Just need to be sure the closed source version has proper attribution if the second license is BSD.
People can contribute back just fine, but if you want their contributions to go into your closed-source product, you need the copyright from them.
If significant contributors want to share in the profit of their labor, I'm sure an arrangement can be reached with sensible project owners. Many are unreasonable though and try to maintain a dual licensed closed source version by collecting copyrights from contributors but reject any revenue sharing arrangements.
Maybe in some regards, but the electrocuting ATM isn't a great example.
There exist numerous product safety laws that could affect the criminal culpability of decision makers in a company who refuse to address serious known safety concerns in their products.
My "inefficiency" comment was directed at PG. I-slony replication doesn't scale well. It works awesome if you only have 1 or 2 slaves, but replication between many servers doesn't work good.
Media players. Hard drives, in computers where there are multiple OS's. Industrial equipment controllers. I bet you even some satellites use FAT.
It's ubiquitous because it's simple and until the NTFS drivers were fixed(read:not trashing your data), FAT was one of the only convenient formats for sharing data between Windows and Linux.
FAT is hardly a submarine patent. MS has sued MANY manufacturers over their use of FAT in electronic devices and most companies end up reaching a licensing agreement and the lawsuit is dropped.
Slashdot Mirror
As a long time user of both OpenOffice and MS Office, I can say without a doubt that the ribbon interface is shit.
Not little shit, or even "the shit", it's a steaming pile. I will say this-Microsoft tried something new for the first time in years with Office. They thought it was intuitive and ground breaking. At least they were half right, it was something new.
It's frustrating to dig through trying to find what you want, only to find that the old, well understood Office dialogs are still there if you know how to get to them. The installation should have had a single checkbox that said "Use Classic Interface" and that be the end of it.
Maybe. There are well plotted average weight gain curves for teens and adults living varying levels of sedentary lifestyles.
I would bet a significant portion of the populace could not hit 550 pounds at any age without outside contributory factors beyond just a sedentary life.
Maybe that's it. I guess I heard it wrong.
Regardless, the fact is that there are a huge number of factors that influence weight gain beyond just what a kid stuffs in his face including metabolism, physical activity frequency/duration/activity type, genetic predisposition, chemical imbalances, etc.
Aside from exercise and food consumption, many of these factors are beyond our control. I've known very obese people who eat less than I, and very skinny people who eat much more than I. To me, neglect is only justified if the weight is causing health problems AND the mother has not sought treatment for those medical problems. For example, untreated diabetes would be neglect to me.
There was actually recently a case where a mother of a severely obese teenager was convicted of child abuse. The logic was that it was abusive for a parent to let their child eat so much that they attained a weight capable of causing life-altering side effects.
So maybe it's not illegal to be fat, but it might be illegal in your area to let your kid get too fat.
Nationwide poverty and food rationing dampens even propaganda-driven nationalism.
I'd bet respect for the government is very low, even among government employees.
Even north koreans don't respect their government, they fear it. That is a wholly different proposition. Displacement of the North Korean government would probably cause less civilian violence than Iraq because their population is largely of the same ethnic origins. Violence in Iraq is largely sectarian, not just "terrorists" as the US government would have you believe.
However, that doesn't mean the actual act of displacing DPRK's governemnt wouldn't require violence. They are one of the most heavily armed countries in the region. Although an exact figure is not known for military spending, it's believed to be a large percentage of their GDP even in comparison to countries like Iraq and Israel.
According to UN reports post-'91, there were significant quantities of VX and mustard gas gone unaccounted for. No one doubts that the WMD's existed-only that Iraq actually had them in 2003.
They're either buried in the desert or were sold off(Iran I'm looking at you). If Iraq legitimately destroyed them, they would have freely showed UN inspectors evidence of this.
I still don't get it.
Can I please be provided yet another analogy? I'm too stupid to read the article and understand the meaning of the words contained therein.
Maybe something involving cars. Thanks.
Then you likely use it for work, and as I mentioned, I don't support use of CARS program funds for purchase of work trucks at all.
Companies should bear the cost of the work they do and subsidizing the purchase of work trucks encourages inefficiencies from being corrected where possible.
On another note, if you need a full size truck for work, its unlikely any new truck of similar tow/load ratings will give you much better fuel economy.
The US debt is a double edged sword. It could sink our economy, but the more people we owe money to, the more interest they have in preventing a total economic collapse. Swift inflation would make outstanding US debts meaningless and swift deflation would prevent any payback in a reasonable time frame.
In effect, our colossal debt encourages our foreign creditors to be more forgiving. There are laws and guidance on insolvency for international corporations(UNCITRAL) but nothing for insolvent countries.
IMO the CARS program rebate shouldn't cover purchase of any type of utility vehicle including light trucks, regardless of MPG improvements.
I'm aware going from 15 MPG to 18 MPG is a tremendous improvement in relative values, but I don't support subsidization of vehicles for work purposes or irresponsible drivers. Skewing fuel economy for work vehicles encourages companies to ignore inefficiencies, resulting in much wasted fuel.
As far as I have seen, there are two types of light truck buyers. The daily commuter-I don't think subsidizing people driving trucks to work is a good idea under any circumstances. Let's keep the program in place but dangle a $4500 carrot in front of them to get them into a new 25+ mpg car and out of that 7 year old F150 they drive 60 miles a day on the freeway.
The 2nd is the rural property owner or outdoors enthusiasts. Spending taxpayer money to buy them new trucks for what will result in minimal fuel savings isn't a sensible idea either. Often times, these types of truck buyers do not put many miles on their trucks and the fuel economy savings doesn't accomplish much in the grand scheme of foreign oil dependency.
IMO, the mileage requirements are an attempt to validate a program whose thinly veiled true purpose is to stimulate auto sales and thus, auto manufacturers.
If that is the case, instead of giving outright $25B or so to the manufacturers, why not throw that money into the CARS program? The majority of it would end up in the manufacturers pockets anyway, but it has the side effect of ramping up production in half-idled plants and would have helped save some dealers from losing their franchises.
If the intent of the CARS program really was fuel efficiency(ha!), then the $1B congress allocated to it is a pittance and shows how much they really care about foreign oil dependency and air quality.
Most open source development is a symbiotic relationship between developers. Each developer builds upon others work to create an even better work, often to fill their own needs. Few developers can carry a large project alone, so in that way, each developer relies on each other developer to bring to fruition a complete software product.
Linus is right in that most OSS development is for selfish reasons, but the net effect is a benefit to the developer community as a whole because of license requirements to share. The result is that each selfish act is inherently beneficial for the community also.
I don't hate microsoft, but 20 years of watching their actions has led to great distrust. MS has fostered a industry-wide corporate culture that views OSS as broken, untrustable, risky, unsupportable, or otherwise inadequate. Microsoft contributions to OSS projects is rightfully viewed with distrust by many in the OSS community. Their modus operandi for 20 years has been embrace and extinguish, in all areas of their business.
Is it outlandish to think Microsoft makes contributions to OSS for subversion?
Simple logic implies this would not work. If the moon were closer, it would need to orbit the earth faster to keep from descending into the planet.
If it were going faster, it wouldn't be in line for an eclipse as long as it is now. If the moon were farther away from the earth, it could orbit slower which would make the eclipse last longer, but might not be a full eclipse.
I'm no astrophysicist, but it seems to me the only easy way to make a solar eclipse last longer would be for the moon to get bigger. So instead of shooting rockets to make move the moon, let's pile up all the lawyers and politicians on the moon. That should make for at least a 10 minute eclipse.
When hobbyists get interested in FPGA development, the first thing they turn to are Altera's and Xilinx's websites and look at top of the line FPGA's like the Virtex 6 LXT. The Spartan 6 is definitely a lightweight compared to the Virtex features.
A newly interested hobbyist should not be under the impression that they can spend $250 and it will have the same features.
The AC's comments are valid and noteworthy nonetheless. Just because someone understands OOP and knows 5 software languages doesn't mean hardware hacking will be easy. The skills are related, but proficiency in one does not necessarily imply aptitude for the other.
I recommend two things. First, give up the notion that FPGA development as a hobby can be done for the price you're looking for. Good development boards are a little pricy, but you will frustrate yourself with no end in sight by using a barebones development kit. The best cheap dev kit I've seen yet is the Xilinx Spartan-6 SP601 kit. It includes everything you need to get started, including Xilinx ISE design software. That should set you back about $300. The Spartan-6 is fairly anemic in features and power compared to most other new FPGA's so a careful consideration of your goals should take place before you make a purchase.
Two, get a good FPGA development book. I highly recommend "Designing with FPGAs and CPLDs". It's a really useful primer on programmable logic hardware to those who already are technically literate.
http://books.google.com/books?id=enQq7m800xYC&dq=embedded+FPGA
Well yes, but if the contributions are under the GPL license only, then you need copyright assignment to distribute them under other terms.
So yeah, if a contributor licensed their contributions under the GPL and BSD licenses, you could use their works in your closed source product. Just need to be sure the closed source version has proper attribution if the second license is BSD.
No, not really.
People can contribute back just fine, but if you want their contributions to go into your closed-source product, you need the copyright from them.
If significant contributors want to share in the profit of their labor, I'm sure an arrangement can be reached with sensible project owners. Many are unreasonable though and try to maintain a dual licensed closed source version by collecting copyrights from contributors but reject any revenue sharing arrangements.
Don't forget fortran.
It's still extremely useful if you're doing math in financial and scientific realms.
Maybe in some regards, but the electrocuting ATM isn't a great example.
There exist numerous product safety laws that could affect the criminal culpability of decision makers in a company who refuse to address serious known safety concerns in their products.
Ya think? X is older than I am.
Can someone spare me reading the article and let me know if DRI is still possible without root?
My "inefficiency" comment was directed at PG. I-slony replication doesn't scale well. It works awesome if you only have 1 or 2 slaves, but replication between many servers doesn't work good.
Media players. Hard drives, in computers where there are multiple OS's. Industrial equipment controllers. I bet you even some satellites use FAT.
It's ubiquitous because it's simple and until the NTFS drivers were fixed(read:not trashing your data), FAT was one of the only convenient formats for sharing data between Windows and Linux.
FAT is hardly a submarine patent. MS has sued MANY manufacturers over their use of FAT in electronic devices and most companies end up reaching a licensing agreement and the lawsuit is dropped.
More accurate would be "The Hills Have Packet Sniffers" but that just isn't catchy.