I think that depends on how narrow you resize the window to. On the ones I've seen, the web page sets a fixed width, in pixels, for the whole site (perhaps 1000px). If your window is wider than that, then it just adds blank bars on either side and centers the site in the middle. Since most monitors these days are wider than 1000px, it looks OK; most people, remember, are using 1024px-width monitors or greater (the widescreen desktop monitors are usually 1920px). Even cellphones are frequently that large (and the ones that aren't set up a larger virtual screen for browsing, so you can pan around to see the whole page). But yes, if you're still using some creaky old 800x600 monitor, or for some odd reason resize your browser window to a 3-figure width, you'll probably have a problem.
One problem I've seen with sites that try to accommodate all screen widths is that it does some wacky things when you try to embed images into the text. I think that's why a lot of websites do this.
I really wish slashdot would fire the idiots who think up the new web layouts. none of them are worth my two cents let alone the tens of thousands of dollars they are being paid.
Unfortunately, the design seen in this new Slashdot Beta is extremely similar to the design used in all new web-based stuff; just look at Google's stuff for instance. All the web designers have drunk the kool-aid.
Star Trek was "serious" not about the science part, but about the social commentary and morality plays. That's what made it great. If you're looking for hard sci-fi, look elsewhere (and probably not on any movie screen).
The new JJ Trek sucks not only because the science is horrible (we really should be better at that stuff now than we were in 1967, because the average viewer should be expected to be more educated on it now), but because the social commentary and morality plays are completely absent, and it's all about boobs, explosions, and propaganda training us to accept militarization in the name of "fighting terrorism".
How do inertial dampeners violate physics any more than warp speed or even artificial gravity? I mean, if you have the ability to control gravity so finely that you can have artificial gravity (not fake gravity like rotating rings) on decks on a starship, and even selectively turn it off in places like the shuttlecraft bay, then why would inertial dampeners be a problem? Likely it's done with the very same technology: you're using gravitational force to counteract undesirable forces, so that the crew on the ship feels a constant 1g downwards acceleration, with no or minimal other forces, at all times. It's just that with ID, you have to generate forces in horizontal directions, not just vertical.
Everyone knows the ESB was the best of the first three SW movies. The first was fun but campy; I may have seen it as a kid, but I could recognize campiness then just as I can now on rewatchings. The acting was never great; the movie was good only because of the FX and scenery and the overall way the movie was put together. ESB was a huge step up in quality: acting, writing, dialog, etc. This wasn't "unfortunate", it was a good thing he was able to make ESB. It's just too bad ROTJ wasn't as good.
The reason for the movies being the way they were was not because of stealing a high-quality story (though that provided the impetus for the whole thing), it was the writing. ANH had mediocre but passable writing, and the reason is because Lucas's wife (now ex-wife) had a big role in cleaning up his sloppy writing and turning it into a decent script. ESB kicked ass because 1) it had a professional writer write the script, and 2) it had a great director (unlike Lucas), Irvin Kirschner. ROTJ was a step back because it had a different director who wasn't quite as good, and Lucas had more of a role in the script than before. And of course, the prequels sucked ass for one simple reason: Lucas did everything. He directed, he wrote the script, he did all of it (and this time around, he didn't have that loyal wife around to fix his screw-ups, since he had dumped her on her ass by this time). That's why those movies sucked so bad.
Sorry, but this kind of story is entirely unsuitable for a movie. No one would take it seriously. Hollywood had a hard enough time with "Apollo 13"; one early reviewer said it was "typical Hollywood bullshit" and that the astronauts would never have survived.
Anyone with a brain should realize he never should have been elected (this isn't to say McCain should have been elected; they both sucked as choices)
The choice was NOT between Obama and McCain. The choice was between Obama, Hillary, Kucinich, and at least three other guys (Gravel was one I think). There were at least 6 choices in the Democratic primaries in 2008. The Democrat voters picked the absolute worst choice possible out of those 6.
No, they're not separate at all; in case you haven't noticed, we have a country with a very strong central government, and representatives from all the states get to vote on the laws. That's why we have all these problems. We can't go back to a weak central government; we tried that back in the 1780s and it didn't work, which is why we switched to the Constitution, and then had a civil war when some states decided they didn't like homogeneity with the other states (not saying their causes were good, but it was a source of friction and later a bloody war). The only way you can have different regions living under different laws is to break them apart into entirely separate countries. Confederacies almost never work in practice, regardless of what "states' rights" advocates like yourself delude themselves into believing.
I hate to defend Obama, but this isn't quite true; he isn't personally responsible for every action the US government takes. He's only personally responsible for the actions (or inactions) of the Executive Branch. His power has limits. But of course, there's a whole lot he could be doing (or ordering not to be done), which he isn't, so it's perfectly fair to criticize or condemn him for those things. Four big examples come to mind: 1) anything involving the military is his fault directly, since he's CiC. This includes all the problems involving rapes in the military: those are his fault. Any time a US drone bombs a family, killing women and children, that's Obama's fault too. 2) anything involving the DoJ is his fault directly, since he's their boss. This includes prosecution of federal marijuana crimes, DEA raids of marijuana clinics, and even marijuana being illegal (he has the power to unilaterally legalize it by taking it off the Schedule 1 list). It also includes failure to prosecute financial companies for their crimes. 3) anything involving the DHS is his fault directly, since he's their boss. This includes the TSA and all their shenanigans. Any time the TSA molests or abuses someone, that's Obama's fault personally, because he has never done anything to change this. This also includes the DHS's efforts in increasing the militarization of the nation's police forces. 4) any new law that's passed with his signature (because he refused to veto it) is his fault directly, for obvious reasons. This includes the Patriot Act renewal and the warrantless wiretapping law renewal.
My fear is that QT will become almost dependent on KDE.
Considering that Qt has an embedded version that's widely used on embedded devices, this isn't likely to happen. Moreover, Qt is extremely modular; you only load into memory the modules your application actually uses, so if you're building an embedded system you can leave out all the modules your applications don't actually use.
As someone who didn't like either of them (then or now), I don't quite see it like that. Or maybe I'm just not seeing the same comments as you. What I see is complete and utter hypocrisy from the "left", and sheer insanity from the right.
You're right, when Bush did unconstitutional shit, "conservatives" defended him, said it was needed, and all that. Now that Obama's in power, a few of them are complaining about the unconstitutional shit he does, but most of them don't seem to have a big problem with the drone-bombings and other warmongering, instead they're whining about Obamacare, or worse, insisting that he's a secret Communist Muslim.
By contrast, the "liberals" (not really) that defend Obama bashed Bush back when he was in power, but now that Obama is doing the same thing, strongly defend anything he does, no matter how similar it is to Bush's policies. They were anti-war back then, now they're pro-war. They were anti-marijuana-enforcement then, now they're in favor. They were pro-transparency then, now they're pro-persecution-of-whistleblowers.
These are fully competent, licensed drivers who turned off their own brains and replaced them with iPhones. This is NOT the airport's fault. It's called personal responsibility.
I'd like to see what the Obama fans have to say about this one. Obama has proven himself to be even worse than Bush time after time, yet they never stop defending him.
I will say, however, I do like the keyboard on my Latitude E6400. Of course, sadly again, my E6400 is probably at least 5 years old now, and I don't know how the keyboards on the new models compare, but the rest of the design seems to have been made crappier (lower vertical screen resolution, uglier case design (more rounded corners, not all-black and square like the E6400/E6410 and thinkpads), ugly styling ring around keyboard, etc.), so I'm not optimistic.
Luckily, computers aren't getting obsolete and aging as badly as they did years ago, so you don't need to get rid of them and get new ones so much. I got a 2008-vintage Dell Latitude E6400 a few months ago on Ebay for about $150 and it's been great. Performance-wise, I don't see how I'm really suffering, or how newer models are significantly faster or why this would matter for web browsing and document editing. The only thing that I need to worry about wearing out is the hard drive, and that's easy to replace with any standard 2.5" SATA model, and other spare parts are available for dirt-cheap on Ebay if I need anything or anything gets broken by accident.
Well whatever you put in the buffer last is still there, so if you're just highlighting and middle-clicking, that still works as normal. Also, you can use the ctrl-C/V and highlight/middle-click buffers separately, just like you've been able to do forever (I just tried it and it still works fine); it's not until you want to go back and look at your buffer history that this changes.
You need to stop buying crappy laptops. All the consumer laptops have gone to shitty keyboards to look like Macs; to get a good laptop, you need to get something in the business class (Thinkpad or Latitude).
This is why you should be using KDE, not Gnome. In KDE, you have an applet (it's part of the standard build) called "Klipper"; it's a LIFO buffer of everything you Ctrl-C or highlight. You can then click on the scissors icon in your tool tray to look at the buffer and select something from it, which can then be pasted with ctrl-V or middle-click. The default buffer size is 10 entries, but that can be manually set to whatever value you like.
The feds don't have power without the states giving it to them. The feds' only real power is from the military, and a large part of the military is actually under the control of the States (national guard units) more or less. Besides, I find it highly unlikely the US military (esp. the regular non-NG part) would conduct any real operations domestically or fire on Americans; it hasn't really happened before (except for the infamous Kent State shooting, which was NG, not regular army), and unlike places like Iraq where different ethnic groups were turned against each other, America doesn't have such clear lines of ethnic division (and in a break-up, it wouldn't be along racial/ethnic lines at all, only geographical/regional). Basically, all that has to happen is the States just have to stop cooperating with the federal government, announce their secession, group together into their chosen new country, and ignore the federal government. If Washington sends troops and installs a military government in those states, it's not going to look good, and it's not going to be supported by the people in the other states at all. At some point, the military is going to decide the people aren't backing any of this, and that they're only serving a small number of people in Washington, and they'll abandon ship.
As far as violence goes, I'd worry a lot more about brutal local cops than the US military putting down protesters. But in places where the state government is in agreement with its people and both want to leave the union, they're not going to allow their cops to brutalize any protesters; it'd only be in states where the people and the state government are opposed, and that won't last too long because then the people will pay much more attention to their local/state elections.
Slashdot Mirror
This said by a dim bulb who doesn't understand that a democratic republic is a form of democracy.
I think that depends on how narrow you resize the window to. On the ones I've seen, the web page sets a fixed width, in pixels, for the whole site (perhaps 1000px). If your window is wider than that, then it just adds blank bars on either side and centers the site in the middle. Since most monitors these days are wider than 1000px, it looks OK; most people, remember, are using 1024px-width monitors or greater (the widescreen desktop monitors are usually 1920px). Even cellphones are frequently that large (and the ones that aren't set up a larger virtual screen for browsing, so you can pan around to see the whole page). But yes, if you're still using some creaky old 800x600 monitor, or for some odd reason resize your browser window to a 3-figure width, you'll probably have a problem.
One problem I've seen with sites that try to accommodate all screen widths is that it does some wacky things when you try to embed images into the text. I think that's why a lot of websites do this.
I really wish slashdot would fire the idiots who think up the new web layouts. none of them are worth my two cents let alone the tens of thousands of dollars they are being paid.
Unfortunately, the design seen in this new Slashdot Beta is extremely similar to the design used in all new web-based stuff; just look at Google's stuff for instance. All the web designers have drunk the kool-aid.
Good to know, and thanks for the reference, but this just reinforces my point even further: Lucas by himself can't make a decent movie.
Star Trek was "serious" not about the science part, but about the social commentary and morality plays. That's what made it great. If you're looking for hard sci-fi, look elsewhere (and probably not on any movie screen).
The new JJ Trek sucks not only because the science is horrible (we really should be better at that stuff now than we were in 1967, because the average viewer should be expected to be more educated on it now), but because the social commentary and morality plays are completely absent, and it's all about boobs, explosions, and propaganda training us to accept militarization in the name of "fighting terrorism".
Now, already in the second movie, both huge successes, it is selling tickets because a lot of people actually liked Abrams work
A lot of people also like Honey Boo Boo, Jerry Springer, Maury Povitch, and The Kardashians. That doesn't make them quality entertainment.
How do inertial dampeners violate physics any more than warp speed or even artificial gravity? I mean, if you have the ability to control gravity so finely that you can have artificial gravity (not fake gravity like rotating rings) on decks on a starship, and even selectively turn it off in places like the shuttlecraft bay, then why would inertial dampeners be a problem? Likely it's done with the very same technology: you're using gravitational force to counteract undesirable forces, so that the crew on the ship feels a constant 1g downwards acceleration, with no or minimal other forces, at all times. It's just that with ID, you have to generate forces in horizontal directions, not just vertical.
So wrong.
Everyone knows the ESB was the best of the first three SW movies. The first was fun but campy; I may have seen it as a kid, but I could recognize campiness then just as I can now on rewatchings. The acting was never great; the movie was good only because of the FX and scenery and the overall way the movie was put together. ESB was a huge step up in quality: acting, writing, dialog, etc. This wasn't "unfortunate", it was a good thing he was able to make ESB. It's just too bad ROTJ wasn't as good.
The reason for the movies being the way they were was not because of stealing a high-quality story (though that provided the impetus for the whole thing), it was the writing. ANH had mediocre but passable writing, and the reason is because Lucas's wife (now ex-wife) had a big role in cleaning up his sloppy writing and turning it into a decent script. ESB kicked ass because 1) it had a professional writer write the script, and 2) it had a great director (unlike Lucas), Irvin Kirschner. ROTJ was a step back because it had a different director who wasn't quite as good, and Lucas had more of a role in the script than before. And of course, the prequels sucked ass for one simple reason: Lucas did everything. He directed, he wrote the script, he did all of it (and this time around, he didn't have that loyal wife around to fix his screw-ups, since he had dumped her on her ass by this time). That's why those movies sucked so bad.
Sorry, but this kind of story is entirely unsuitable for a movie. No one would take it seriously. Hollywood had a hard enough time with "Apollo 13"; one early reviewer said it was "typical Hollywood bullshit" and that the astronauts would never have survived.
Fact is stranger than fiction.
Anyone with a brain should realize he never should have been elected (this isn't to say McCain should have been elected; they both sucked as choices)
The choice was NOT between Obama and McCain. The choice was between Obama, Hillary, Kucinich, and at least three other guys (Gravel was one I think). There were at least 6 choices in the Democratic primaries in 2008. The Democrat voters picked the absolute worst choice possible out of those 6.
No, they're not separate at all; in case you haven't noticed, we have a country with a very strong central government, and representatives from all the states get to vote on the laws. That's why we have all these problems. We can't go back to a weak central government; we tried that back in the 1780s and it didn't work, which is why we switched to the Constitution, and then had a civil war when some states decided they didn't like homogeneity with the other states (not saying their causes were good, but it was a source of friction and later a bloody war). The only way you can have different regions living under different laws is to break them apart into entirely separate countries. Confederacies almost never work in practice, regardless of what "states' rights" advocates like yourself delude themselves into believing.
I hate to defend Obama, but this isn't quite true; he isn't personally responsible for every action the US government takes. He's only personally responsible for the actions (or inactions) of the Executive Branch. His power has limits. But of course, there's a whole lot he could be doing (or ordering not to be done), which he isn't, so it's perfectly fair to criticize or condemn him for those things. Four big examples come to mind: 1) anything involving the military is his fault directly, since he's CiC. This includes all the problems involving rapes in the military: those are his fault. Any time a US drone bombs a family, killing women and children, that's Obama's fault too. 2) anything involving the DoJ is his fault directly, since he's their boss. This includes prosecution of federal marijuana crimes, DEA raids of marijuana clinics, and even marijuana being illegal (he has the power to unilaterally legalize it by taking it off the Schedule 1 list). It also includes failure to prosecute financial companies for their crimes. 3) anything involving the DHS is his fault directly, since he's their boss. This includes the TSA and all their shenanigans. Any time the TSA molests or abuses someone, that's Obama's fault personally, because he has never done anything to change this. This also includes the DHS's efforts in increasing the militarization of the nation's police forces. 4) any new law that's passed with his signature (because he refused to veto it) is his fault directly, for obvious reasons. This includes the Patriot Act renewal and the warrantless wiretapping law renewal.
Linux Mint KDE edition seems to work decently enough.
My fear is that QT will become almost dependent on KDE.
Considering that Qt has an embedded version that's widely used on embedded devices, this isn't likely to happen. Moreover, Qt is extremely modular; you only load into memory the modules your application actually uses, so if you're building an embedded system you can leave out all the modules your applications don't actually use.
I have to agree. Gnome2 always looked rather dated and too minimalist to me. Gnome3 is just too unusable to even bother trying.
As someone who didn't like either of them (then or now), I don't quite see it like that. Or maybe I'm just not seeing the same comments as you. What I see is complete and utter hypocrisy from the "left", and sheer insanity from the right.
You're right, when Bush did unconstitutional shit, "conservatives" defended him, said it was needed, and all that. Now that Obama's in power, a few of them are complaining about the unconstitutional shit he does, but most of them don't seem to have a big problem with the drone-bombings and other warmongering, instead they're whining about Obamacare, or worse, insisting that he's a secret Communist Muslim.
By contrast, the "liberals" (not really) that defend Obama bashed Bush back when he was in power, but now that Obama is doing the same thing, strongly defend anything he does, no matter how similar it is to Bush's policies. They were anti-war back then, now they're pro-war. They were anti-marijuana-enforcement then, now they're in favor. They were pro-transparency then, now they're pro-persecution-of-whistleblowers.
These are fully competent, licensed drivers who turned off their own brains and replaced them with iPhones. This is NOT the airport's fault. It's called personal responsibility.
No, it's called "loyal Apple users".
I'd like to see what the Obama fans have to say about this one. Obama has proven himself to be even worse than Bush time after time, yet they never stop defending him.
That's not just sad, that's doubly sad.
I will say, however, I do like the keyboard on my Latitude E6400. Of course, sadly again, my E6400 is probably at least 5 years old now, and I don't know how the keyboards on the new models compare, but the rest of the design seems to have been made crappier (lower vertical screen resolution, uglier case design (more rounded corners, not all-black and square like the E6400/E6410 and thinkpads), ugly styling ring around keyboard, etc.), so I'm not optimistic.
Luckily, computers aren't getting obsolete and aging as badly as they did years ago, so you don't need to get rid of them and get new ones so much. I got a 2008-vintage Dell Latitude E6400 a few months ago on Ebay for about $150 and it's been great. Performance-wise, I don't see how I'm really suffering, or how newer models are significantly faster or why this would matter for web browsing and document editing. The only thing that I need to worry about wearing out is the hard drive, and that's easy to replace with any standard 2.5" SATA model, and other spare parts are available for dirt-cheap on Ebay if I need anything or anything gets broken by accident.
Well whatever you put in the buffer last is still there, so if you're just highlighting and middle-clicking, that still works as normal. Also, you can use the ctrl-C/V and highlight/middle-click buffers separately, just like you've been able to do forever (I just tried it and it still works fine); it's not until you want to go back and look at your buffer history that this changes.
You need to stop buying crappy laptops. All the consumer laptops have gone to shitty keyboards to look like Macs; to get a good laptop, you need to get something in the business class (Thinkpad or Latitude).
This is why you should be using KDE, not Gnome. In KDE, you have an applet (it's part of the standard build) called "Klipper"; it's a LIFO buffer of everything you Ctrl-C or highlight. You can then click on the scissors icon in your tool tray to look at the buffer and select something from it, which can then be pasted with ctrl-V or middle-click. The default buffer size is 10 entries, but that can be manually set to whatever value you like.
The feds don't have power without the states giving it to them. The feds' only real power is from the military, and a large part of the military is actually under the control of the States (national guard units) more or less. Besides, I find it highly unlikely the US military (esp. the regular non-NG part) would conduct any real operations domestically or fire on Americans; it hasn't really happened before (except for the infamous Kent State shooting, which was NG, not regular army), and unlike places like Iraq where different ethnic groups were turned against each other, America doesn't have such clear lines of ethnic division (and in a break-up, it wouldn't be along racial/ethnic lines at all, only geographical/regional). Basically, all that has to happen is the States just have to stop cooperating with the federal government, announce their secession, group together into their chosen new country, and ignore the federal government. If Washington sends troops and installs a military government in those states, it's not going to look good, and it's not going to be supported by the people in the other states at all. At some point, the military is going to decide the people aren't backing any of this, and that they're only serving a small number of people in Washington, and they'll abandon ship.
As far as violence goes, I'd worry a lot more about brutal local cops than the US military putting down protesters. But in places where the state government is in agreement with its people and both want to leave the union, they're not going to allow their cops to brutalize any protesters; it'd only be in states where the people and the state government are opposed, and that won't last too long because then the people will pay much more attention to their local/state elections.