Why are you deflecting? Regardless of his erroneous interpretation, when you boil away the fluff, God is a sick, twisted, perverted, and often hypocritical entity that has used humanity a punching bag.
These cartels don't seem to understand the size and complexity of the internet. They're not going to get very far if they think they can silence every blogger out there.
It seems like you're directing your anger at the wrong person. Tell me. Are you happy in your life? You seem to be stressed about a trivial comment on the internet. I wonder how you handle yourself in the real world.
You *really* wouldn't want to see how the sausage is made my friend.
Politics, specifically foreign policy, is a dirty that sometimes needs to be done in private.
My desktop is not a toy, it is something that I do serious work on and I need an operating system that is geared toward serious work.
I see. Well, I suggest you take a look at other Linux distributions because Ubuntu is aiming to become a mainstream operating system. That means more focus on aesthetics as opposed to streamlined interface. Hell, that's where a lot of Linux distributions are headed.
I think these developers are finally beginning to see that if they want to appeal to an audience other than power users and die-hard fans, they're going to have to add more bells and whistles to their distributions.
Which is impossible unless you have different GUIs on the different systems.
Why would you think it's impossible? Unity is well suited for tablets but it's usable on desktop computers as well, provided you look past the usability flaws. Microsoft has been doing this for years, offering Windows 7 with the same GUI for both desktops and tablets.
I believe they're attempting to unify(get it?) their operating system. Keep in mind a while back they dropped their Netbook Remix flavor of Ubuntu which originally had the Unity interface. I'm guessing they aim to create one singular OS that will satisfy both desktop, laptop and mobile users alike.
Ubuntu's abrupt GUI makeover isn't something radical. It's a sound marketing decision by Canonical, similar to the radical design of Chromium/Chrome OS Google has been quietly making for a while now.
Many experts have predicted that the future is going mobile. Let's get real here. Even if Ubuntu dropped Unity, they still would have updated GNOME to version 3. In any case, Ubuntu still wouldn't compete with Windows on the desktop market. The next logical arena is the mobile market. Between iOS, Android, Win Mobile, and et al, Ubuntu would be a breath of fresh air, especially for the tablet market that has grown weary of Android-based operating systems.
Life finds a way.
What I find really amusing is that we humans have convinced ourselves that we need to take care of our environment for the sake of other animals that live among us. In reality, we should be worrying about our own survival. You see, since we lack basic survival skills, we have developed large brains to create a buffer from harsh environments, thus slowing our own evolution (micro and macro).
It's not the end of the world if we destroy our environment. Life will find away....without us.
tl;dr?
This comic sums it all up:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2011/06/what_mother_nature_thinks_of_u/sweetnature.jpeg
Re:XP SP2+ was Microsoft's last decent computer OS
on
10 Years of Windows XP
·
· Score: 1
" a) it was installed by default on every no-name brand PC at the lowest price points and b) it was pirated widely."
Is that your best explanation on why it's dominating the desktop market? Because it was pirated? Based on your logic, Linux should have long killed Microsoft as it was being offered at no charge. What about corporations? What are their reasons for using Windows?
Like I said before, Windows, as "dummbed down" it may seem, just works. It shields everyday users from the complexities of working with terminal or editing configuration files (which you still have to do, even in Ubuntu). It's also the platform of choice for mainstream applications and games. Generally speaking, I've had a smoother and more enjoyable experience using Windows than I did with Linux. With the way things are going with Gnome 3, KDE, and Unity, I doubt Linux distros would ever be comparable to Windows 7.
Re:XP SP2+ was Microsoft's last decent computer OS
on
10 Years of Windows XP
·
· Score: 1
I have my share of complaints with Windows, but let's be honest here. They dominate the desktop market for a reason. Whether it be hardware or software compatibility, they are the frontrunners in the desktop market.
Windows has created an image of itself that is based on simplicity and ease of use. I have a life to live. I could care less if my desktop is locked down or proprietary. Don't believe me? Look at the success of iOS and Macs. Linux is great for desktop use, yet unreliable and unfriendly for the *general* population. I've had problems with *nix based software as well as Linux distributions in general. That's why I tend to use Windows 7 more so than I do any of my Linux operating systems installed on my machines. Although this may not be the case for other users, I speak from experience when I say I've had a better experience with 7 than I've had with any other operating system I've used so far.
The few individuals concerned with their privacy have long fled Facebook. Whatever changes Facebook makes will only hurt those idiotic enough to stay on the social networking site.
It seems like the more advanced a technology becomes, the more it takes for it to accomplish a basic task.
My Android phone takes about 30 seconds to go from cold and dark to making a phone call. This is also the same for your desktop PC. My PlayStation 3 has to be properly shutdown to avoid damage to the hard drive due to forced power-downs, which takes about 10 seconds. The self-checkout kiosks at the grocers has a 3-5 second lag each time I scan an item or put it on the baggage area too quickly.
Let's face it. Sometimes it's better to stick with older hardware for the sake of simplicity and ease of use.
Fax machines may be old and clunky, but it beats having to send email attachments or wrestle with scanners.
Let this be a lesson that there is no such thing as a "safe" operating system. I find it rather amusing that they're downplaying this breach instead of really questioning how one would unknowingly hack kernel.org, which should have been sufficiently protected given the material it hosts.
Well, I'm referring to the telecom industry as a whole. AT&T just instated a 150 GB limit for its DSL users, a time when high-definition streaming is becoming a norm. I'm sure this is the case for a few other ISPs out there. While other countries are investing in their communications infrastructure, these companies here in the United States are trying to profit from every ounce of bandwidth they provide us. I have yet to see Verizon or AT&T experiment with high-speed networks or city-wide WiFi like Google has done in Mountain View ( http://wifi.google.com/ ).
As long as customers don't complain too much, these companies have no incentives to provide better infrastructure for its users.
Instead of coming up with new and innovative ways to increase data usage while lightning the workload on the network, they punish all of their customers to save a few bucks here and there.
Seriously though, why can't they sell it off to the private sector to be used as a research station or just a getaway for filthy rich oil moguls? It's a waste of effort to let it die like this.
"The âoeChromelessâ project experiments with the idea of removing the current browser user interface and replacing it with a flexible platform which allows for the creation of new browser UI using standard web technologies such as HTML, CSS and JavaScript."...What about XUL?
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you deflecting? Regardless of his erroneous interpretation, when you boil away the fluff, God is a sick, twisted, perverted, and often hypocritical entity that has used humanity a punching bag.
realFireFoxVersion(x) = (5 - 4.5/x + x/1000).toString()+"beta"
It's going to be on version 4 for quite a while...
These cartels don't seem to understand the size and complexity of the internet. They're not going to get very far if they think they can silence every blogger out there.
It seems like you're directing your anger at the wrong person. Tell me. Are you happy in your life? You seem to be stressed about a trivial comment on the internet. I wonder how you handle yourself in the real world.
You *really* wouldn't want to see how the sausage is made my friend. Politics, specifically foreign policy, is a dirty that sometimes needs to be done in private.
I was hoping there would be an affiliate ID on your link so I could report you. You win this time, spam bot.
but it's quite interesting that President Obama is briefed daily on the latest hot topic tweets and Facebook posts."
Isn't that what trending hashtags are for?
Dr. Ian Malcolm: God help us; we're in the hands of engineers.
My desktop is not a toy, it is something that I do serious work on and I need an operating system that is geared toward serious work.
I see. Well, I suggest you take a look at other Linux distributions because Ubuntu is aiming to become a mainstream operating system. That means more focus on aesthetics as opposed to streamlined interface. Hell, that's where a lot of Linux distributions are headed.
I think these developers are finally beginning to see that if they want to appeal to an audience other than power users and die-hard fans, they're going to have to add more bells and whistles to their distributions.
Which is impossible unless you have different GUIs on the different systems.
Why would you think it's impossible? Unity is well suited for tablets but it's usable on desktop computers as well, provided you look past the usability flaws. Microsoft has been doing this for years, offering Windows 7 with the same GUI for both desktops and tablets.
I believe they're attempting to unify(get it?) their operating system. Keep in mind a while back they dropped their Netbook Remix flavor of Ubuntu which originally had the Unity interface. I'm guessing they aim to create one singular OS that will satisfy both desktop, laptop and mobile users alike.
Ubuntu's abrupt GUI makeover isn't something radical. It's a sound marketing decision by Canonical, similar to the radical design of Chromium/Chrome OS Google has been quietly making for a while now. Many experts have predicted that the future is going mobile. Let's get real here. Even if Ubuntu dropped Unity, they still would have updated GNOME to version 3. In any case, Ubuntu still wouldn't compete with Windows on the desktop market. The next logical arena is the mobile market. Between iOS, Android, Win Mobile, and et al, Ubuntu would be a breath of fresh air, especially for the tablet market that has grown weary of Android-based operating systems.
They effectively lost the desktop market with Unity.
Life finds a way. What I find really amusing is that we humans have convinced ourselves that we need to take care of our environment for the sake of other animals that live among us. In reality, we should be worrying about our own survival. You see, since we lack basic survival skills, we have developed large brains to create a buffer from harsh environments, thus slowing our own evolution (micro and macro). It's not the end of the world if we destroy our environment. Life will find away....without us. tl;dr? This comic sums it all up: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2011/06/what_mother_nature_thinks_of_u/sweetnature.jpeg
" a) it was installed by default on every no-name brand PC at the lowest price points and b) it was pirated widely." Is that your best explanation on why it's dominating the desktop market? Because it was pirated? Based on your logic, Linux should have long killed Microsoft as it was being offered at no charge. What about corporations? What are their reasons for using Windows? Like I said before, Windows, as "dummbed down" it may seem, just works. It shields everyday users from the complexities of working with terminal or editing configuration files (which you still have to do, even in Ubuntu). It's also the platform of choice for mainstream applications and games. Generally speaking, I've had a smoother and more enjoyable experience using Windows than I did with Linux. With the way things are going with Gnome 3, KDE, and Unity, I doubt Linux distros would ever be comparable to Windows 7.
I have my share of complaints with Windows, but let's be honest here. They dominate the desktop market for a reason. Whether it be hardware or software compatibility, they are the frontrunners in the desktop market. Windows has created an image of itself that is based on simplicity and ease of use. I have a life to live. I could care less if my desktop is locked down or proprietary. Don't believe me? Look at the success of iOS and Macs. Linux is great for desktop use, yet unreliable and unfriendly for the *general* population. I've had problems with *nix based software as well as Linux distributions in general. That's why I tend to use Windows 7 more so than I do any of my Linux operating systems installed on my machines. Although this may not be the case for other users, I speak from experience when I say I've had a better experience with 7 than I've had with any other operating system I've used so far.
But wait there's more! With every question you ask /., you'll also get an earful from unhelpful cynics!
The few individuals concerned with their privacy have long fled Facebook. Whatever changes Facebook makes will only hurt those idiotic enough to stay on the social networking site.
It seems like the more advanced a technology becomes, the more it takes for it to accomplish a basic task. My Android phone takes about 30 seconds to go from cold and dark to making a phone call. This is also the same for your desktop PC. My PlayStation 3 has to be properly shutdown to avoid damage to the hard drive due to forced power-downs, which takes about 10 seconds. The self-checkout kiosks at the grocers has a 3-5 second lag each time I scan an item or put it on the baggage area too quickly. Let's face it. Sometimes it's better to stick with older hardware for the sake of simplicity and ease of use. Fax machines may be old and clunky, but it beats having to send email attachments or wrestle with scanners.
Let this be a lesson that there is no such thing as a "safe" operating system. I find it rather amusing that they're downplaying this breach instead of really questioning how one would unknowingly hack kernel.org, which should have been sufficiently protected given the material it hosts.
What did you expect to happen when you leave top-secret military hardware after forcing yourself into a sovereign nation?
Well, I'm referring to the telecom industry as a whole. AT&T just instated a 150 GB limit for its DSL users, a time when high-definition streaming is becoming a norm. I'm sure this is the case for a few other ISPs out there. While other countries are investing in their communications infrastructure, these companies here in the United States are trying to profit from every ounce of bandwidth they provide us. I have yet to see Verizon or AT&T experiment with high-speed networks or city-wide WiFi like Google has done in Mountain View ( http://wifi.google.com/ ). As long as customers don't complain too much, these companies have no incentives to provide better infrastructure for its users.
Instead of coming up with new and innovative ways to increase data usage while lightning the workload on the network, they punish all of their customers to save a few bucks here and there.
Seriously though, why can't they sell it off to the private sector to be used as a research station or just a getaway for filthy rich oil moguls? It's a waste of effort to let it die like this.
"The âoeChromelessâ project experiments with the idea of removing the current browser user interface and replacing it with a flexible platform which allows for the creation of new browser UI using standard web technologies such as HTML, CSS and JavaScript." ...What about XUL?