I like Gnome 3 too, but for a different reason. I just find it simple enough. Thing is, everyone's workflow is different, and mine is extremely simplified - I need a web browser, gterms, and multiple desktops, that's it. So Gnome's ultra clean interface appeals to me.
That said, I can certainly understand not liking Gnome 3, but it really seems out of proportion. After thinking about it a bit, I wonder if the hate is not because of the interface per se, but rather that the Gnome developers made a huge, unsanctioned change which affected a massive number of users. That sort of thing breaks a lot of trust.
If someone does that while I'm talking to them, I just stop talking and wait for them to finish. Usually does the trick; they typically catch on after a few seconds of silence.
Agreed. I was thinking about 3D printing the other day, and after considering the problem, I don't know if I would actually buy one for home usage. I just don't buy that many objects.
Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic technology with a ton of possibilities for replacing existing industrial processes, etc., but how many lamps, DVD players, or other household objects can one family need? It seems more likely to me that most people would just order something at their local neighbourhood 3D printer and go pick it up later.
In an ideal world, I wouldn't even think about this possibility, but in the current system, what you're suggesting lends itself well to abuse. For example, crooked authority figures would only need to appeal to the notion of politeness and privacy to cover their own deeds.
After encountering the notion in the Vorkosigan series and thinking about it a bit, the notion of lab-grown meat doesn't seem like a big deal. It's arguably more sanitary than an animal that's been standing in filth for its entire life, after all.
Agreed. DVD stores are a thing of the past; time to move on to value-add. Gourmet popcorn, home viewing hardware, private viewing rooms, all that sort of stuff.
If you're a religious person, would religious colleagues push their opinions on you?
Agreed with you on the other point, but one caveat: you're at work to work, not to preach. At some point, common courtesy indicates that a subject be dropped. Otherwise it's disruptive to everyone.
I'm really curious about how they solved the last mile problem. I've thought about starting a non-profit ISP in Canada, but the real questions is how to avoid paying Bell their pound of flesh. Until that problem is solved and you've got ISP-agnostic fibre being laid, it means that you're charging what Bell is charging.
Here in Montreal, we don't even have cell phone signal in the vast majority of the subway network. Hell, I'm still waiting for bathrooms and disabled access, let alone such 'luxuries' as wifi.
Really? I wonder why they'd bother. I had an unlimited data plan on my smartphone, and as far as I know, pretty much everyone else did too, and at least with KTF, I had tethering.
Maybe I'm just a cold, cynical bastard, but when I see booth babes, I don't feel positive associations. In fact, I immediately get suspicious - if their product needs booth babes to drive traffic, how good can it be intrinsically?
Hell, I don't even know what Cinnamon even is. I keep going back to the website, but it doesn't ever explicitly tell you. I think it's a desktop environment?
I'm genuinely curious. Have other countries really, truly explicitly asked the US to militarily intervene in the sovereign affairs of other nations? I often find myself a bit out of my depth with US/international relations, so I'd be much obliged if you could provide a link or two.
Well, I suppose you'd have to check countries where this has already occurred, such as in South Korea. In South Korea, the smartphones are subsidized, but you can still change carrier. It just so happens that when you do, the new carrier simply buys the phone contract from the old carrier, and makes a new contract with the client for the phone.
That's absolutely correct, but the point is the continuity in the self-propagating pattern. The person I am today is distinct, both in terms of mental state and composition, from the person I was ten years ago, but it's not like we think of ourselves as the murderers of our previous iterations.
I am not comfortable with the concept of losing the continuity in my self-propagating pattern. I've come to enjoy it.:)
Curiously enough, this didn't stop South Korean telecom companies. When I was living there, I was able to move my phone from company to company without a problem, even with a smartphone plus subsidy. The only limit was that I could only move my phone sixty after signing the initial contract.
I assume that the new company simply bought the phone contract from the old company outright, and simply continued on the same terms with the client.
There was a story about this involving some sort of super AI called Manna. It ended up essentially destroying the economy, I believe, and relegating everyone below the highest classes to concentration camps for poor people.
I don't know that their solution was ideal, but I do suspect that a post-scarce economy is what we need to investigate.
While I agree with your overall point, I disagree with the notion that exposing children to a single strong accent (that is, a strong accent differing from the one used in their environment) could affect their speech patterns. My experiences suggest that it is the overall environment that determines language development, and not a single source of linguistic information. For example, my parents speak English with very heavy accents, and I studied at a French immersion high school. Yet, my English is still excellent and adheres to the Canadian standard, even after four years spent abroad.
Similarly, my ESL students speak rather... less... like me than I would prefer.
Your question is actually fairly complex, and the answer depends on which ideological lens you favour.
The right wing people would likely submit that the richer classes will invest or otherwise use their money, and thus employ many other people, in the so-called 'trickle down effect'. I don't think this actually works very well in practise, but in theory, that's the idea.
The left wing people, on the other hand, might say that your hypothesis is entirely correct: as the people at the top begin to concentrate and accumulate wealth, the nation as a whole becomes impoverished, much like England in the late 1800s. I tend to agree with the left wing people; I think that this situation in the US is actually very worrisome and almost entirely due to excessive hoarding of wealth by higher classes.
The actual answer is probably somewhere between the two, though I favour an answer that's a little closer to the left wing response. No doubt, there are wealthy people who invest sensibly to create jobs, especially entrepreneurs and business owners, but I also suspect that a lot of wealthy people are only stock holders, and I'm not sure how trading stock (after the IPO) is directly beneficial to the economy.
Wealth is infinite in the same way that Gmail has infinite storage. The foundations of wealth have always been in production, whether industrial or intellectual, and there's a finite limit to how much stuff can be produced at one moment. And not only that, but wealth is also being destroyed, most simply by consumption, but for a wide variety of other reasons.
So while you're right on a theoretical level - in that probably more wealth is being created at any given moment than is destroyed - on a practical level, you may as well say that there's a finite amount of wealth.
I've been thinking a lot about the concept of co-op driven economics for a while. Small, owned and operated by the employees themselves, responsibilities and profits both would be shared more equitably.
I'm not sure that this is necessarily a bad thing. If you've been keeping up with the Chosun Ilbo, you may have noticed that there are an increasing number of crimes being routed over the 'net. For example, there've been a lot of cases of online bullying leading to suicides, and unsavoury stories of middle school students being blackmailed into prostitution via online means. Not to mention all the cases of internet addiction.
I admit that this may not be the best idea. Ideally, the police would investigate online crimes like any other crimes. But given that they don't seem very interested in investigating things (unless they're related to foreigner crimes, of course), this might be a valid way to target crimes from another angle.
It depends on what you mean by "cost effective". Many people would argue that our current manufacturing process isn't cost effective either, in the long run - we're simply outsourcing our pollution and other industrial effluvia.
Arguably, building a small, localized industrial base which is extremely flexible might be better than sending all our money to China.
I've occasionally wondered why one doesn't simply set up shop in a country that has more equitable IP laws and a more balanced judicial system. It certainly seems like the US has a system that favours deep pockets, but I wonder if the same would be true in other countries. I'm fairly certain that having deeper pockets doesn't necessarily work as well in Canada as in the US, though I admit that my knowledge of legal procedure isn't much beyond microscopic.
Are you asserting the need of underprivileged nations to more reliable sources of food? Or are you asserting the rights of individuals to work in their chosen fields?
While both of these are social problems that demand social answers, I think you will agree that they are very different conversations.
Slashdot Mirror
I like Gnome 3 too, but for a different reason. I just find it simple enough. Thing is, everyone's workflow is different, and mine is extremely simplified - I need a web browser, gterms, and multiple desktops, that's it. So Gnome's ultra clean interface appeals to me.
That said, I can certainly understand not liking Gnome 3, but it really seems out of proportion. After thinking about it a bit, I wonder if the hate is not because of the interface per se, but rather that the Gnome developers made a huge, unsanctioned change which affected a massive number of users. That sort of thing breaks a lot of trust.
If someone does that while I'm talking to them, I just stop talking and wait for them to finish. Usually does the trick; they typically catch on after a few seconds of silence.
Agreed. I was thinking about 3D printing the other day, and after considering the problem, I don't know if I would actually buy one for home usage. I just don't buy that many objects.
Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic technology with a ton of possibilities for replacing existing industrial processes, etc., but how many lamps, DVD players, or other household objects can one family need? It seems more likely to me that most people would just order something at their local neighbourhood 3D printer and go pick it up later.
In an ideal world, I wouldn't even think about this possibility, but in the current system, what you're suggesting lends itself well to abuse. For example, crooked authority figures would only need to appeal to the notion of politeness and privacy to cover their own deeds.
After encountering the notion in the Vorkosigan series and thinking about it a bit, the notion of lab-grown meat doesn't seem like a big deal. It's arguably more sanitary than an animal that's been standing in filth for its entire life, after all.
Agreed. DVD stores are a thing of the past; time to move on to value-add. Gourmet popcorn, home viewing hardware, private viewing rooms, all that sort of stuff.
If you're a religious person, would religious colleagues push their opinions on you?
Agreed with you on the other point, but one caveat: you're at work to work, not to preach. At some point, common courtesy indicates that a subject be dropped. Otherwise it's disruptive to everyone.
I'm really curious about how they solved the last mile problem. I've thought about starting a non-profit ISP in Canada, but the real questions is how to avoid paying Bell their pound of flesh. Until that problem is solved and you've got ISP-agnostic fibre being laid, it means that you're charging what Bell is charging.
Here in Montreal, we don't even have cell phone signal in the vast majority of the subway network. Hell, I'm still waiting for bathrooms and disabled access, let alone such 'luxuries' as wifi.
Really? I wonder why they'd bother. I had an unlimited data plan on my smartphone, and as far as I know, pretty much everyone else did too, and at least with KTF, I had tethering.
Maybe I'm just a cold, cynical bastard, but when I see booth babes, I don't feel positive associations. In fact, I immediately get suspicious - if their product needs booth babes to drive traffic, how good can it be intrinsically?
Hell, I don't even know what Cinnamon even is. I keep going back to the website, but it doesn't ever explicitly tell you. I think it's a desktop environment?
I'm genuinely curious. Have other countries really, truly explicitly asked the US to militarily intervene in the sovereign affairs of other nations? I often find myself a bit out of my depth with US/international relations, so I'd be much obliged if you could provide a link or two.
Well, I suppose you'd have to check countries where this has already occurred, such as in South Korea. In South Korea, the smartphones are subsidized, but you can still change carrier. It just so happens that when you do, the new carrier simply buys the phone contract from the old carrier, and makes a new contract with the client for the phone.
That's absolutely correct, but the point is the continuity in the self-propagating pattern. The person I am today is distinct, both in terms of mental state and composition, from the person I was ten years ago, but it's not like we think of ourselves as the murderers of our previous iterations.
I am not comfortable with the concept of losing the continuity in my self-propagating pattern. I've come to enjoy it. :)
Curiously enough, this didn't stop South Korean telecom companies. When I was living there, I was able to move my phone from company to company without a problem, even with a smartphone plus subsidy. The only limit was that I could only move my phone sixty after signing the initial contract.
I assume that the new company simply bought the phone contract from the old company outright, and simply continued on the same terms with the client.
There was a story about this involving some sort of super AI called Manna. It ended up essentially destroying the economy, I believe, and relegating everyone below the highest classes to concentration camps for poor people.
I don't know that their solution was ideal, but I do suspect that a post-scarce economy is what we need to investigate.
While I agree with your overall point, I disagree with the notion that exposing children to a single strong accent (that is, a strong accent differing from the one used in their environment) could affect their speech patterns. My experiences suggest that it is the overall environment that determines language development, and not a single source of linguistic information. For example, my parents speak English with very heavy accents, and I studied at a French immersion high school. Yet, my English is still excellent and adheres to the Canadian standard, even after four years spent abroad.
Similarly, my ESL students speak rather... less... like me than I would prefer.
Your question is actually fairly complex, and the answer depends on which ideological lens you favour.
The right wing people would likely submit that the richer classes will invest or otherwise use their money, and thus employ many other people, in the so-called 'trickle down effect'. I don't think this actually works very well in practise, but in theory, that's the idea.
The left wing people, on the other hand, might say that your hypothesis is entirely correct: as the people at the top begin to concentrate and accumulate wealth, the nation as a whole becomes impoverished, much like England in the late 1800s. I tend to agree with the left wing people; I think that this situation in the US is actually very worrisome and almost entirely due to excessive hoarding of wealth by higher classes.
The actual answer is probably somewhere between the two, though I favour an answer that's a little closer to the left wing response. No doubt, there are wealthy people who invest sensibly to create jobs, especially entrepreneurs and business owners, but I also suspect that a lot of wealthy people are only stock holders, and I'm not sure how trading stock (after the IPO) is directly beneficial to the economy.
Wealth is infinite in the same way that Gmail has infinite storage. The foundations of wealth have always been in production, whether industrial or intellectual, and there's a finite limit to how much stuff can be produced at one moment. And not only that, but wealth is also being destroyed, most simply by consumption, but for a wide variety of other reasons.
So while you're right on a theoretical level - in that probably more wealth is being created at any given moment than is destroyed - on a practical level, you may as well say that there's a finite amount of wealth.
I've been thinking a lot about the concept of co-op driven economics for a while. Small, owned and operated by the employees themselves, responsibilities and profits both would be shared more equitably.
I'm not sure that this is necessarily a bad thing. If you've been keeping up with the Chosun Ilbo, you may have noticed that there are an increasing number of crimes being routed over the 'net. For example, there've been a lot of cases of online bullying leading to suicides, and unsavoury stories of middle school students being blackmailed into prostitution via online means. Not to mention all the cases of internet addiction.
I admit that this may not be the best idea. Ideally, the police would investigate online crimes like any other crimes. But given that they don't seem very interested in investigating things (unless they're related to foreigner crimes, of course), this might be a valid way to target crimes from another angle.
It depends on what you mean by "cost effective". Many people would argue that our current manufacturing process isn't cost effective either, in the long run - we're simply outsourcing our pollution and other industrial effluvia.
Arguably, building a small, localized industrial base which is extremely flexible might be better than sending all our money to China.
I've occasionally wondered why one doesn't simply set up shop in a country that has more equitable IP laws and a more balanced judicial system. It certainly seems like the US has a system that favours deep pockets, but I wonder if the same would be true in other countries. I'm fairly certain that having deeper pockets doesn't necessarily work as well in Canada as in the US, though I admit that my knowledge of legal procedure isn't much beyond microscopic.
I don't understand your reply.
Are you asserting the need of underprivileged nations to more reliable sources of food? Or are you asserting the rights of individuals to work in their chosen fields?
While both of these are social problems that demand social answers, I think you will agree that they are very different conversations.