Don't be stupid. Everyone else is really everyone else. Mir is only usable in Unity, and only Canonical uses Unity. There's a LOT more distros out there than Red Hat. And yes, they DID needlessly create a competitor to Wayland. Are you a Canonical shill?
"Everyone else" is switching to Wayland when it's ready, and has been participating in its development for some time now. But then Canonical decided to make their own competing and incompatible display server, which only fragments the FOSS landscape unnecessarily, instead of just helping out with the piece of infrastructure everyone else has already decided on, including all the major X11 devs. So no, it's not misleading at all. Canonical deserves every bit of the criticism they've received here.
I was gifted Netflix streaming for 6 months, and while I enjoyed seeing some of the animated DC movies I had missed and re-watching "The Man from Earth" It was devoid of new releases or current season TV shows.
They have two of them now: Orange is the New Black, and House of Cards, both not only new releases but exclusive to Netflix (and on top of that, they release the whole season at once, instead of the archaic and idiotic practice of making you wait a week for each episode). Obvious, this is also monopolistic in a way, but that's the market they're in and that's what everyone else is doing, they're just doing it better.
Anyway, Netflix (other than those two) isn't really in the business of having current-season TV shows (probably largely because the networks won't allow it, not because Netflix doesn't want to). However, Hulu(/Plus) does have some of those.
Right now, no one for anything serious, because it's still in development. Unlike a lot of other shit in FOSS-land (cough Unity cough Gnome3 cough KDE4.0 cough) they made the prudent choice to keep it confined to development uses only, until it's really ready to fully replace X11 without breaking lots of stuff. Since X11 is so integral to Linux at such a low level, this isn't an easy task and is taking some time.
There aren't many private planes that can fly transcontinentally, and not that many more that can fly intercontinentally without stopping for fuel. You have to have a fairly large jetliner to fly that distance without refueling; a typical private jet (Learjet sized) can't do it.
What I want to know is how much this actually affects the body's temperature. When you're really hot, one way to cool down is to put an ice cube on your forehead and on your neck, over your carotid arteries. This isn't just a trick; there's a lot of blood flowing through those spots on your body, so if you cool them down with an icecube, you're also cooling your blood, which of course cools your whole body because of the circulatory system. I imagine the same effect works with your wrist, but not nearly as effectively, since there isn't that much blood flowing near that point.
Of course, this won't help with skin temperature over the rest of your body, but you won't notice the skin being too hot or cold as badly if your blood supply is heated or cooled. I do wonder if long-term usage of a device like this might have negative effects on your body though.
Yes, I had the same problem at a past job. That's why you put your space heater under your desk. Does your office manager run around looking under everyone's desk every day?
OTOH, in Arizona where the air is bone-dry they don't use many air conditioners, they have "swamp coolers" that lower the temperature by forcing air through a stream of water
You've obviously not been to Arizona in at least 20 years. No one uses swamp coolers any more because they don't work when the temperature is too high or the weather too humid. You'll see some older houses (70s-80s) that have piggyback swamp coolers + heatpumps, but no one builds houses like that any more, they've all gone to regular heat pumps because the efficiency is high on modern units, and again, swamp coolers stop working when it's too hot, and these days, it's gotten extremely hot in Phoenix and it never goes below 100 in the summer, even at night.
Actually, Netflix and Amazon Prime don't really work that well, because they only have a limited selection. If the program you want to watch is on there, then great; Netflix is only $8/month for unlimited online viewing. But if the program you want isn't on there and requires you to get both a cable subcription and an HBO subscription, well, Torrenting is the only feasible and affordable alternative. And, MythTV doesn't work for shows like that, because of the cable+HBO deal, but also because last I heard, MythTV doesn't work for premium cable channels, so you have to spend even more money for some shitty cableco-provided DVR box that doesn't work right.
If the content companies just put all their stuff on Netflix and Amazon Prime, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, and not many people would bother with torrenting.
I never said it was new, just that it seems to be one of the main competitors to Paypal. (You may have misread my statement, I said this thing from Square is new.) I don't know much about it except I've heard it's more popular in Europe.
What's wrong with leatherneck? It's rather archaic of course, but it does hearken back to the time when the Marines were first formed, and used in the Barbary Wars. The term came about because they had to wear jackets with special thick leather neck protectors because they were fighting with swords against the Barbary pirates, and these leather neck protectors helped stop sword slashes to the neck.
I guess you don't understand just how huge of an effect on the global economy there would be if the US defaulted on its debt. I suggest you go read some articles about it; there's no shortage of them in the popular press explaining it to layman like us. Hint: it's much, much worse than "temporarily doing a bit less than normal" or paying "moderately higher interest rates".
Now of course, according to the news at this hour, it appears a deal has been reached to avoid reaching the debt ceiling, but we were just hours away from this event happening. What other country runs its government this way, playing with the brink of disaster? That sounds like "deeply failed" to me. We might have avoided disaster this time around, but we're going to be back at the same place in a few months, and we might not be so lucky that time.
In case you Europeans haven't figured out the obvious yet, America is basically a third-world country that refuses to accept that fact. Except that in some ways, America is even worse than third-world countries, such as with our banking system. Even crappy third-world countries' banks use SWIFT transfers, but only the larger banks in America are on SWIFT, and then they charge you huge fees for doing transfers that way.
Even Google will transfer money for you these days.
Wrong, unfortunately. Google used to have a system called "Google Payments", which was basically a clone of Paypal, but it was shut down recently. They still have part of it around, but it's only for people selling apps in the Android marketplace.
The only competition to Paypal these days seems to be "Moneybookers", this new thing from Square, regular merchant accounts (which only make sense for very high-volume sellers), and money orders in the mail.
Liberals don't hate guns that aren't controlled by the government, they hate guns period. They put up with them in the hands of military and police, and that's it. Where do you think all the people enlisting in the military come from these days anyway? It's not the blue states; they're not the super-patriotic ones painting their pickup trucks with eagles and US flags. I never see stuff like that in the northeast, only down south.
A lot of American coal is actually shipped out of the country these days, lots of it to China. America tends to use hydro, nuclear, natural gas, and these days more and more solar for its power needs, rather than coal. Regardless, most of America's coal comes from (IIRC) West Virginia and central Pennsylvania, neither of which is likely to have any problems with seaport access after a break-up. There's no coal in Kansas or North Dakota.
Oil doesn't come from landlocked states. It mostly comes from Texas, Louisiana, and the Gulf of Mexico (near the TX and LA coasts), and some other places off the coast of southeast states (which again, are all bordering the ocean or the Gulf of Mexico), as well as Alaska (which again is on the ocean). I've never heard of oil in Kansas or North Dakota.
Meat and grain are the only things I can think of offhand which come from the landlocked states, plus lots of lots of corn, which is really a rather shitty crop anyway which has been propped up by the corn lobby with government subsidies. In a break-up, I imagine the corn-growing states are going to get hit really hard, without those nice subsidies and special treatment. As for meat, much of the meat grown in the flyover states is crap too, since it's fed with corn and grain, rather than grass-fed.
For the US it's the opposite, the average citizen LOVES the concept of America (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness; all men created equal; land of the free home of the brave; etc) They wouldn't let "their" America break up without a fight.
Perhaps. But are they willing to sacrifice their lives to keep other Americans from seceding? The ones talking the most about secession these days aren't people like me wanting to get rid of the South, it's southerners, Tea Partiers, basically people from the "red states". If they decide to leave, who's going to challenge them and lay down their lives to force them to stay? There's no big moral issue like slavery here, like there was in 1861, it's all just political issues like government's role in healthcare, taxing the rich, whether corporations are people, etc. So are you trying to tell me that all the blue-state liberals, who generally hate guns anyway, are all going to enlist in the military and take up arms so they can force the Tea Partiers and other red staters to stay in the union? I'm highly dubious about this.
Unfortunately most of these were not well-covered in Western press, but it looks like all them have one factor in common: they involved ethnic groups that didn't get along, and dominated particular regions which were merged with countries they didn't want to be in.
As I said in another post, despite these conflicts, the vast majority of citizens of the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries didn't see any violence at all. And if we look for parallels to predict how a break-up in the US would go, the one big difference the US has is that there are no significant clusters of ethnic minorities dominating particular regions like that and who don't get along with their neighbors. There's really only 2 significant minority groups here at all: African-Americans and Hispanics, and both of these are mixed into the general population all over the place, for the most part, rather than being confined to particular regions. They do have certain neighborhoods and cities they're more concentrated in, but it's not like eastern Europe where they dominate one region and the people in the neighboring region don't like them, but also have political control of the minority's region because of historical reasons. It's not like downtown Detroit is going to try to secede from Michigan, for instance, or Spanish Harlem is going to try to secede from NYC and form a new country. The only instance I can think of where there is some significant minority that dominates a particular region is the Mormons in Utah and Idaho, so maybe there they will push to form their own new country in that region.
If the US breaks up, it'll be because the country has deeply failed - not because some people on the fringe were feeling their oats.
Well, considering the US government is barely functioning and is one day away from defaulting on its debt for the first time in history, I'd say that signs are pointing to "deeply failed".
I guess that depends on who you talk to. The people in the South probably think their region will be the stronger, and the people in other regions probably think their region will be stronger.
The people wanting secession wouldn't stay in the US, of course.
Depending on how far the secession movement went, there might not be a "US" left afterwards, just a handful of separate republics with different names. I'm not sure which one would want to hold onto the "United States" name, if any; probably the Northeast if anyone, I'm guessing. If only a few southeast states ditched, then sure, the rest would still be the "US", but what if it became a snowball effect, and other regions did the same thing, such as the northwest or even the whole western half? I'll bet CA, OR, and WA (and probably CO too) would be really happy to not have the DEA running around busting marijuana stores that are legal under state law (though, if a bunch of southeast red states seceded, the rest of the country might just go ahead and legalize it themselves since much of the opposition comes from the southeast).
So they'd be in the pieces which are more likely to benefit from the break up.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure everyone pushing for secession believes their region will benefit from the break-up, but that's probably not the case; just like with Yugoslavia, there will probably be some winners and some losers. The people in the southeast have long had secessionist ideals, but their region is also historically underperforming economically, as well as in many other metrics (education, life expectancy, etc.). But that's OK; if they want to go their own way, they should have that right to self-determination, as should everyone. You can't claim to be in favor of democratic principles and then authoritatively say that millions of people should be prevented from having political autonomy and self-determination.
Well, if America follows Rome's example, it'll break apart and while half of it collapses into feudalism, the other half will continue on as normal for another 1000 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the corrections. I knew it was right around the corner but things have moved a little farther along than I had realized.
Don't be stupid. Everyone else is really everyone else. Mir is only usable in Unity, and only Canonical uses Unity. There's a LOT more distros out there than Red Hat. And yes, they DID needlessly create a competitor to Wayland. Are you a Canonical shill?
"Everyone else" is switching to Wayland when it's ready, and has been participating in its development for some time now. But then Canonical decided to make their own competing and incompatible display server, which only fragments the FOSS landscape unnecessarily, instead of just helping out with the piece of infrastructure everyone else has already decided on, including all the major X11 devs. So no, it's not misleading at all. Canonical deserves every bit of the criticism they've received here.
I was gifted Netflix streaming for 6 months, and while I enjoyed seeing some of the animated DC movies I had missed and re-watching "The Man from Earth" It was devoid of new releases or current season TV shows.
They have two of them now: Orange is the New Black, and House of Cards, both not only new releases but exclusive to Netflix (and on top of that, they release the whole season at once, instead of the archaic and idiotic practice of making you wait a week for each episode). Obvious, this is also monopolistic in a way, but that's the market they're in and that's what everyone else is doing, they're just doing it better.
Anyway, Netflix (other than those two) isn't really in the business of having current-season TV shows (probably largely because the networks won't allow it, not because Netflix doesn't want to). However, Hulu(/Plus) does have some of those.
Right now, no one for anything serious, because it's still in development. Unlike a lot of other shit in FOSS-land (cough Unity cough Gnome3 cough KDE4.0 cough) they made the prudent choice to keep it confined to development uses only, until it's really ready to fully replace X11 without breaking lots of stuff. Since X11 is so integral to Linux at such a low level, this isn't an easy task and is taking some time.
There aren't many private planes that can fly transcontinentally, and not that many more that can fly intercontinentally without stopping for fuel. You have to have a fairly large jetliner to fly that distance without refueling; a typical private jet (Learjet sized) can't do it.
What I want to know is how much this actually affects the body's temperature. When you're really hot, one way to cool down is to put an ice cube on your forehead and on your neck, over your carotid arteries. This isn't just a trick; there's a lot of blood flowing through those spots on your body, so if you cool them down with an icecube, you're also cooling your blood, which of course cools your whole body because of the circulatory system. I imagine the same effect works with your wrist, but not nearly as effectively, since there isn't that much blood flowing near that point.
Of course, this won't help with skin temperature over the rest of your body, but you won't notice the skin being too hot or cold as badly if your blood supply is heated or cooled. I do wonder if long-term usage of a device like this might have negative effects on your body though.
Yes, I had the same problem at a past job. That's why you put your space heater under your desk. Does your office manager run around looking under everyone's desk every day?
OTOH, in Arizona where the air is bone-dry they don't use many air conditioners, they have "swamp coolers" that lower the temperature by forcing air through a stream of water
You've obviously not been to Arizona in at least 20 years. No one uses swamp coolers any more because they don't work when the temperature is too high or the weather too humid. You'll see some older houses (70s-80s) that have piggyback swamp coolers + heatpumps, but no one builds houses like that any more, they've all gone to regular heat pumps because the efficiency is high on modern units, and again, swamp coolers stop working when it's too hot, and these days, it's gotten extremely hot in Phoenix and it never goes below 100 in the summer, even at night.
torrentz.eu is my go-to site for torrent files; it aggregates results from lots of other sites.
Actually, Netflix and Amazon Prime don't really work that well, because they only have a limited selection. If the program you want to watch is on there, then great; Netflix is only $8/month for unlimited online viewing. But if the program you want isn't on there and requires you to get both a cable subcription and an HBO subscription, well, Torrenting is the only feasible and affordable alternative. And, MythTV doesn't work for shows like that, because of the cable+HBO deal, but also because last I heard, MythTV doesn't work for premium cable channels, so you have to spend even more money for some shitty cableco-provided DVR box that doesn't work right.
If the content companies just put all their stuff on Netflix and Amazon Prime, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, and not many people would bother with torrenting.
I never said it was new, just that it seems to be one of the main competitors to Paypal. (You may have misread my statement, I said this thing from Square is new.) I don't know much about it except I've heard it's more popular in Europe.
What's wrong with leatherneck? It's rather archaic of course, but it does hearken back to the time when the Marines were first formed, and used in the Barbary Wars. The term came about because they had to wear jackets with special thick leather neck protectors because they were fighting with swords against the Barbary pirates, and these leather neck protectors helped stop sword slashes to the neck.
I guess you don't understand just how huge of an effect on the global economy there would be if the US defaulted on its debt. I suggest you go read some articles about it; there's no shortage of them in the popular press explaining it to layman like us. Hint: it's much, much worse than "temporarily doing a bit less than normal" or paying "moderately higher interest rates".
Now of course, according to the news at this hour, it appears a deal has been reached to avoid reaching the debt ceiling, but we were just hours away from this event happening. What other country runs its government this way, playing with the brink of disaster? That sounds like "deeply failed" to me. We might have avoided disaster this time around, but we're going to be back at the same place in a few months, and we might not be so lucky that time.
In case you Europeans haven't figured out the obvious yet, America is basically a third-world country that refuses to accept that fact. Except that in some ways, America is even worse than third-world countries, such as with our banking system. Even crappy third-world countries' banks use SWIFT transfers, but only the larger banks in America are on SWIFT, and then they charge you huge fees for doing transfers that way.
Even Google will transfer money for you these days.
Wrong, unfortunately. Google used to have a system called "Google Payments", which was basically a clone of Paypal, but it was shut down recently. They still have part of it around, but it's only for people selling apps in the Android marketplace.
The only competition to Paypal these days seems to be "Moneybookers", this new thing from Square, regular merchant accounts (which only make sense for very high-volume sellers), and money orders in the mail.
Liberals don't hate guns that aren't controlled by the government, they hate guns period. They put up with them in the hands of military and police, and that's it. Where do you think all the people enlisting in the military come from these days anyway? It's not the blue states; they're not the super-patriotic ones painting their pickup trucks with eagles and US flags. I never see stuff like that in the northeast, only down south.
If grass-fed is cheaper to produce, then why on earth would anyone bother putting cows on a corn-fed diet? That doesn't even make sense.
A lot of American coal is actually shipped out of the country these days, lots of it to China. America tends to use hydro, nuclear, natural gas, and these days more and more solar for its power needs, rather than coal. Regardless, most of America's coal comes from (IIRC) West Virginia and central Pennsylvania, neither of which is likely to have any problems with seaport access after a break-up. There's no coal in Kansas or North Dakota.
Oil doesn't come from landlocked states. It mostly comes from Texas, Louisiana, and the Gulf of Mexico (near the TX and LA coasts), and some other places off the coast of southeast states (which again, are all bordering the ocean or the Gulf of Mexico), as well as Alaska (which again is on the ocean). I've never heard of oil in Kansas or North Dakota.
Meat and grain are the only things I can think of offhand which come from the landlocked states, plus lots of lots of corn, which is really a rather shitty crop anyway which has been propped up by the corn lobby with government subsidies. In a break-up, I imagine the corn-growing states are going to get hit really hard, without those nice subsidies and special treatment. As for meat, much of the meat grown in the flyover states is crap too, since it's fed with corn and grain, rather than grass-fed.
For the US it's the opposite, the average citizen LOVES the concept of America (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness; all men created equal; land of the free home of the brave; etc) They wouldn't let "their" America break up without a fight.
Perhaps. But are they willing to sacrifice their lives to keep other Americans from seceding? The ones talking the most about secession these days aren't people like me wanting to get rid of the South, it's southerners, Tea Partiers, basically people from the "red states". If they decide to leave, who's going to challenge them and lay down their lives to force them to stay? There's no big moral issue like slavery here, like there was in 1861, it's all just political issues like government's role in healthcare, taxing the rich, whether corporations are people, etc. So are you trying to tell me that all the blue-state liberals, who generally hate guns anyway, are all going to enlist in the military and take up arms so they can force the Tea Partiers and other red staters to stay in the union? I'm highly dubious about this.
Unfortunately most of these were not well-covered in Western press, but it looks like all them have one factor in common: they involved ethnic groups that didn't get along, and dominated particular regions which were merged with countries they didn't want to be in.
As I said in another post, despite these conflicts, the vast majority of citizens of the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries didn't see any violence at all. And if we look for parallels to predict how a break-up in the US would go, the one big difference the US has is that there are no significant clusters of ethnic minorities dominating particular regions like that and who don't get along with their neighbors. There's really only 2 significant minority groups here at all: African-Americans and Hispanics, and both of these are mixed into the general population all over the place, for the most part, rather than being confined to particular regions. They do have certain neighborhoods and cities they're more concentrated in, but it's not like eastern Europe where they dominate one region and the people in the neighboring region don't like them, but also have political control of the minority's region because of historical reasons. It's not like downtown Detroit is going to try to secede from Michigan, for instance, or Spanish Harlem is going to try to secede from NYC and form a new country. The only instance I can think of where there is some significant minority that dominates a particular region is the Mormons in Utah and Idaho, so maybe there they will push to form their own new country in that region.
If the US breaks up, it'll be because the country has deeply failed - not because some people on the fringe were feeling their oats.
Well, considering the US government is barely functioning and is one day away from defaulting on its debt for the first time in history, I'd say that signs are pointing to "deeply failed".
I guess that depends on who you talk to. The people in the South probably think their region will be the stronger, and the people in other regions probably think their region will be stronger.
The people wanting secession wouldn't stay in the US, of course.
Depending on how far the secession movement went, there might not be a "US" left afterwards, just a handful of separate republics with different names. I'm not sure which one would want to hold onto the "United States" name, if any; probably the Northeast if anyone, I'm guessing. If only a few southeast states ditched, then sure, the rest would still be the "US", but what if it became a snowball effect, and other regions did the same thing, such as the northwest or even the whole western half? I'll bet CA, OR, and WA (and probably CO too) would be really happy to not have the DEA running around busting marijuana stores that are legal under state law (though, if a bunch of southeast red states seceded, the rest of the country might just go ahead and legalize it themselves since much of the opposition comes from the southeast).
So they'd be in the pieces which are more likely to benefit from the break up.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure everyone pushing for secession believes their region will benefit from the break-up, but that's probably not the case; just like with Yugoslavia, there will probably be some winners and some losers. The people in the southeast have long had secessionist ideals, but their region is also historically underperforming economically, as well as in many other metrics (education, life expectancy, etc.). But that's OK; if they want to go their own way, they should have that right to self-determination, as should everyone. You can't claim to be in favor of democratic principles and then authoritatively say that millions of people should be prevented from having political autonomy and self-determination.
Well, if America follows Rome's example, it'll break apart and while half of it collapses into feudalism, the other half will continue on as normal for another 1000 years.