Also these days I use suspend rather than shutting down. In 1995 I couldn't do this on a desktop, but now Linux supports this very well. I use a master/slave power strip, so monitor, loudspeaker etc are switched on automatically when I press the button on the PC. Just takes a few seconds for me to log in - with a few hundred browser tabs open right were I left them.
Well, they want to move 64 academics to "teaching-only" positions, so that should help.
Of course the question is why they offered this to them. Are they good teachers who just don't have the time to work on research due to their course load? That would make sense, but then their course load could only be increased marginally, and they might be demotivated by now not being able to do research anymore. Or are they bad researchers who just can't get anything accomplished and also don't spend a lot of time teaching? They might be better off teaching then, but that casts doubt on the idea that they might be good teachers...
It just seems like a very low threshold. Introducing methods like number of lines of code written are typically a bad idea. However if the metric is: "you need to write at least 500 lines of code per year" then well - it's really a bit strange if you can't even do that.
Well of course that may happen, but I'm an engineer, and on top of my normal work my department wants me to publish about one paper per year. I don't really have a problem finding an interesting topic either. So while an arbitrary publication count may not necessarily be a good thing, 4 papers in three years is such a low threshold, that you really have to wonder what these people are doing.
Well, the civilization would have to be self-sufficient it couldn't really be supported from Earth, I agree there. However you could still exchange information to an extent, like sending papers from scientific conferences. In the beginning the colony would be mainly an information sink - catching up with advances made on Earth, but it's conceivable that after some time they could take the lead in some fields, maybe even so much so that they could be ahead by 4 years. Or maybe discovering things which are only observable on their end. That could be interesting.
Initially this will hurt Firefox on Linux. It might be an indication that Adobe doesn't intend to put a lot of resources into Flash anymore, but the action itself should have very little impact on Flash.
A whole set of them, including the supreme court. If it was as easy as finding one sympathetic judge, then it would have never applied to the people it was intended to.
And yeah, I'm glad some people did get the paper airplane reference.
I don't really think think that CUPS 1.6 does anything like that. Apple merely removed some features which they don't need for their own systems. From what I read there is nothing in that release which would achieve driverless printing. Anyway, I find the article barely readable at best. I appreciate the difficulty of writing in a foreign language - English isn't my first language either - but most of this just doesn't parse.
Well, it's not like they shot down a drone doing atmospheric research or someone's hobby RC plane. They sent that thing there with the explicit intention to interfere with them. If some kids kick a ball onto my property, I'll give the ball back to them. They are children, they need to play. However if they were to start kicking balls deliberately against my front door with the express purpose of annoying me, then I think I would have a different attitude. (Obviously I wouldn't condone involving guns in a matter like this, but I think it's fair to say that these are different categories.)
[...] which if successful will seriously change everything...
I'm attempting to build an anti-gravity device out of folded paper just now. If that works it will seriously change everything. Why would it work, though?
IIRC KDE3 had a style guide requesting that splash screens would be all inside the application window. I always thought that was a brilliant idea. Whether an app can be made to load instantaneously might depend on computing power (although I agree with him, that this shouldn't be an issue for modern computers, anymore) but the really annoying thing about Splash screens is that they sit there blocking access to your desktop, just to tell you "look I'm loading". There is certainly never a need for that.
Other than that, I think there are many good usability ideas in smartphone/tablet GUIs which ought to be brought to the desktop. Not the stupid stuff like making a desktop UI look like it was intended to be used with a touchscreen, but doing away with all the superfluous confirmation dialogs. An application should not ask you whether "you really want to quit" you already told it that - instead it should make sure that when you quit nothing bad happens. If you were working on a document but didn't save that yet - then just keep the working copy when the program is closed. Don't overwrite what's in the saved copy and don't throw it away - just restore it when the application is opened again, and suddenly quitting word processor is no longer dangerous. When quitting a music or video player it should remember what you were playing and come back to that when the application is started again. A video player should keep the position basically for every movie it has been playing, so if you come back to it later you can continue to watch from the same position, even if you have watched something else in between.
Remove the danger rather than asking the user twice when doing something dangerous.
Sensible idea, but in the UK you can be forced to tell the court your password. So if you were ever accused of something they could get the private keys of everybody in your address book and decode all your past traffic.
Anyway, they can't store that much data, and they are not actually proposing to: "databases would not record the content of the customerâ(TM)s communications but would store the numbers and email addresses of the sender and the recipient and [...] Facebook communications".
So really the encryption does nothing in this case. If they don't have the content, they can't decrypt it either. Even if it's encrypted they would still have your contact lists. Encryption wouldn't even be an option for Facebook messages, I would think. You could simply switch to Google+, or use "https" for Facebook. However these social networks would obviously still have all the messages stored, and a court could mandate that you hand over the password to the account.
Well that's their plan, and they have every right to go about it the way they think is best. There may be better or more efficient plans to be sure, but lets not forget that *they* are actually doing something (including learning from past mistakes) and if you are doing something you always have the risk of failure. As long as you are just speculating it's much less obvious when you are wrong.
In this particular case: mountainous area, no roads - carrying kerosene on someone's back up the mountain is probably not such a great option. Likely people would just continue to burn the wood growing up there even if they had the stoves available.
To clarify why I think the other guys have better solutions: e.g. the first design doesn't need solar cells (just reflectors) and has no batteries (stores heat instead of electricity). That's a lot more low-tech thus probably better suited for the place where they use it, and likely less expensive.
Try to build it within their cost requirements, present your prototype and compare it with the other designs. If you think you can do better, then help out - you could really make a difference to the lives of many people. I suspect you'll find that your initial idea won't be quite as good as what the other guys came up with, but generally there is always a better solution around somewhere. One more person looking for that can't hurt.
It's not just the inconvenience, it looks like the original designs broke down as well. So the new designs need to be more sturdy, as well. I hope they can get this to work - helping to solve deforestation, reducing cancer risks and eliminating some very hard labor - it really would be a boon for these people.
Or leave everything as it is apart from making coins from cheaper material, and save $100 million with very little effort. Expending a lot of political capital for such a small amount is really not worth it. If you have to convince 55% of the population of something they don't want, then pick an important issue like global warming, the war on drugs etc.
You probably got a coin from some other currency, either by mistake because it looked similar to a cent coin, or just because it looked similar. Maybe it was a US half cent coin. The Euro never had such a coin.
Come on, that's really not what he's saying. He's just advocating that you stay individuals who are in love with each other, rather than attempting to become one person. Not because nobody should be close to anyone else, but because having no individuality left at all is boring and constricting.
I don't need (and want) to read every email my wife is exchanging with her highschool friends and I would never open a letter to her without explicit permission to do so. To me, having some boundaries there is a sign of mutual respect. Surely that's good to have in a marriage?
They didn't send the child home, just her lunch. That's according to TFA. She brought a lunch, someone apparently decided it wasn't healthy enough, instead she got cafeteria food (chicken nuggets, apparently a lot less healthy than what she got). So not much happening there. Talk to the school, find out why she was given cafeteria food, sort it out.
Maybe someone made a mistake, maybe there was a crying child with a sandwich surrounded by children with chicken nuggets? I suppose you could call the media.
Guido Bertolaso, former head of the Department of Civil Protection [...] a few weeks ago a wiretap revealed that he had apparently set up the meeting to convey a reassuring message, regardless of the scientists' opinion. [...] Mualchin said that seismic hazards were not properly assessed in L'Aquila. [...] "They [the scientists] were conscious of the high risk in the area, and yet did not advise the people to take any precaution whatsoever" he said.
Now those accusations may not be correct, but the charge is not that they were supposed to be psychic, but that they gave knowingly wrong advice.
Slashdot Mirror
Also these days I use suspend rather than shutting down. In 1995 I couldn't do this on a desktop, but now Linux supports this very well. I use a master/slave power strip, so monitor, loudspeaker etc are switched on automatically when I press the button on the PC. Just takes a few seconds for me to log in - with a few hundred browser tabs open right were I left them.
Well, they want to move 64 academics to "teaching-only" positions, so that should help.
Of course the question is why they offered this to them. Are they good teachers who just don't have the time to work on research due to their course load? That would make sense, but then their course load could only be increased marginally, and they might be demotivated by now not being able to do research anymore. Or are they bad researchers who just can't get anything accomplished and also don't spend a lot of time teaching? They might be better off teaching then, but that casts doubt on the idea that they might be good teachers ...
It just seems like a very low threshold. Introducing methods like number of lines of code written are typically a bad idea. However if the metric is: "you need to write at least 500 lines of code per year" then well - it's really a bit strange if you can't even do that.
Well of course that may happen, but I'm an engineer, and on top of my normal work my department wants me to publish about one paper per year. I don't really have a problem finding an interesting topic either. So while an arbitrary publication count may not necessarily be a good thing, 4 papers in three years is such a low threshold, that you really have to wonder what these people are doing.
Well, the civilization would have to be self-sufficient it couldn't really be supported from Earth, I agree there. However you could still exchange information to an extent, like sending papers from scientific conferences. In the beginning the colony would be mainly an information sink - catching up with advances made on Earth, but it's conceivable that after some time they could take the lead in some fields, maybe even so much so that they could be ahead by 4 years. Or maybe discovering things which are only observable on their end. That could be interesting.
What if Sony went out of business without manufacturing a gazillion PSPs as replacements for current PSP owners until the end of time?
Then it wouldn't matter to them any more if their customer base is happy with them or not. As long as they are in business however, they
I look forward to the demise of Flash.
Initially this will hurt Firefox on Linux. It might be an indication that Adobe doesn't intend to put a lot of resources into Flash anymore, but the action itself should have very little impact on Flash.
All PETA need to do is get a sympathetic judge.
A whole set of them, including the supreme court. If it was as easy as finding one sympathetic judge, then it would have never applied to the people it was intended to.
And yeah, I'm glad some people did get the paper airplane reference.
I don't really think think that CUPS 1.6 does anything like that. Apple merely removed some features which they don't need for their own systems. From what I read there is nothing in that release which would achieve driverless printing. Anyway, I find the article barely readable at best. I appreciate the difficulty of writing in a foreign language - English isn't my first language either - but most of this just doesn't parse.
I would recommend to read this article instead.
Well, it's not like they shot down a drone doing atmospheric research or someone's hobby RC plane. They sent that thing there with the explicit intention to interfere with them. If some kids kick a ball onto my property, I'll give the ball back to them. They are children, they need to play. However if they were to start kicking balls deliberately against my front door with the express purpose of annoying me, then I think I would have a different attitude. (Obviously I wouldn't condone involving guns in a matter like this, but I think it's fair to say that these are different categories.)
[...] which if successful will seriously change everything ...
I'm attempting to build an anti-gravity device out of folded paper just now. If that works it will seriously change everything. Why would it work, though?
IIRC KDE3 had a style guide requesting that splash screens would be all inside the application window. I always thought that was a brilliant idea. Whether an app can be made to load instantaneously might depend on computing power (although I agree with him, that this shouldn't be an issue for modern computers, anymore) but the really annoying thing about Splash screens is that they sit there blocking access to your desktop, just to tell you "look I'm loading". There is certainly never a need for that.
Other than that, I think there are many good usability ideas in smartphone/tablet GUIs which ought to be brought to the desktop. Not the stupid stuff like making a desktop UI look like it was intended to be used with a touchscreen, but doing away with all the superfluous confirmation dialogs. An application should not ask you whether "you really want to quit" you already told it that - instead it should make sure that when you quit nothing bad happens. If you were working on a document but didn't save that yet - then just keep the working copy when the program is closed. Don't overwrite what's in the saved copy and don't throw it away - just restore it when the application is opened again, and suddenly quitting word processor is no longer dangerous. When quitting a music or video player it should remember what you were playing and come back to that when the application is started again. A video player should keep the position basically for every movie it has been playing, so if you come back to it later you can continue to watch from the same position, even if you have watched something else in between.
Remove the danger rather than asking the user twice when doing something dangerous.
Sensible idea, but in the UK you can be forced to tell the court your password. So if you were ever accused of something they could get the private keys of everybody in your address book and decode all your past traffic.
Anyway, they can't store that much data, and they are not actually proposing to: "databases would not record the content of the customerâ(TM)s communications but would store the numbers and email addresses of the sender and the recipient and [...] Facebook communications".
So really the encryption does nothing in this case. If they don't have the content, they can't decrypt it either. Even if it's encrypted they would still have your contact lists. Encryption wouldn't even be an option for Facebook messages, I would think. You could simply switch to Google+, or use "https" for Facebook. However these social networks would obviously still have all the messages stored, and a court could mandate that you hand over the password to the account.
Well that's their plan, and they have every right to go about it the way they think is best. There may be better or more efficient plans to be sure, but lets not forget that *they* are actually doing something (including learning from past mistakes) and if you are doing something you always have the risk of failure. As long as you are just speculating it's much less obvious when you are wrong.
In this particular case: mountainous area, no roads - carrying kerosene on someone's back up the mountain is probably not such a great option. Likely people would just continue to burn the wood growing up there even if they had the stoves available.
It worked for Darl. Cushy job with a great salary for many years, company kept afloat with MS cash, not much to do apart from talking to your lawyers.
Oh come on. They have a problem with deforestation. They get sick from the open fires indoors. Carrying that wood through the mountains is hard labor.
Everyone is happy and goes to bed smelling like campfire smoke. Is there anything better?
Yes.
To clarify why I think the other guys have better solutions: e.g. the first design doesn't need solar cells (just reflectors) and has no batteries (stores heat instead of electricity). That's a lot more low-tech thus probably better suited for the place where they use it, and likely less expensive.
Try to build it within their cost requirements, present your prototype and compare it with the other designs. If you think you can do better, then help out - you could really make a difference to the lives of many people. I suspect you'll find that your initial idea won't be quite as good as what the other guys came up with, but generally there is always a better solution around somewhere. One more person looking for that can't hurt.
It's not just the inconvenience, it looks like the original designs broke down as well. So the new designs need to be more sturdy, as well. I hope they can get this to work - helping to solve deforestation, reducing cancer risks and eliminating some very hard labor - it really would be a boon for these people.
Maybe charge $1 for an account. If someone doesn't play nice you cancel the account.
Or leave everything as it is apart from making coins from cheaper material, and save $100 million with very little effort. Expending a lot of political capital for such a small amount is really not worth it. If you have to convince 55% of the population of something they don't want, then pick an important issue like global warming, the war on drugs etc.
You probably got a coin from some other currency, either by mistake because it looked similar to a cent coin, or just because it looked similar. Maybe it was a US half cent coin. The Euro never had such a coin.
Come on, that's really not what he's saying. He's just advocating that you stay individuals who are in love with each other, rather than attempting to become one person. Not because nobody should be close to anyone else, but because having no individuality left at all is boring and constricting.
I don't need (and want) to read every email my wife is exchanging with her highschool friends and I would never open a letter to her without explicit permission to do so. To me, having some boundaries there is a sign of mutual respect. Surely that's good to have in a marriage?
They didn't send the child home, just her lunch. That's according to TFA. She brought a lunch, someone apparently decided it wasn't healthy enough, instead she got cafeteria food (chicken nuggets, apparently a lot less healthy than what she got). So not much happening there. Talk to the school, find out why she was given cafeteria food, sort it out.
Maybe someone made a mistake, maybe there was a crying child with a sandwich surrounded by children with chicken nuggets? I suppose you could call the media.
That's not why they are being charged:
Guido Bertolaso, former head of the Department of Civil Protection [...] a few weeks ago a wiretap revealed that he had apparently set up the meeting to convey a reassuring message, regardless of the scientists' opinion. [...] Mualchin said that seismic hazards were not properly assessed in L'Aquila. [...] "They [the scientists] were conscious of the high risk in the area, and yet did not advise the people to take any precaution whatsoever" he said.
Now those accusations may not be correct, but the charge is not that they were supposed to be psychic, but that they gave knowingly wrong advice.