Neither KDE or GNOME is more "bloated" than XP or OSX, which is the equivalent windowing system on other platforms. That's the problem. You keep comparing them to Win 95 or System 9, which is sort of like comparing Linux to DOS. Therefore, your question is basically a straw man.
Now please answer my question -- why is your underwear in such a twist about software you don't even use?
So what you are saying is that you have the tools to do what you need to do, but you're still going to whine about something you have no intention of using? You don't like Gnome or KDE, so you don't use them. Great. Those of us that do use them do not want their capabilities limited because the base architecture was designed to run on hardware that hasn't been available new for nearly a decade now. I'm not suggesting that the requirements for XFree86 be raised, but I don't think that the requirements for the optional modern environments should be lowered either.
TWM runs just fine on a 386 as well. You're comparing obsolete versions of an operating system running on obsolete hardware. Bottom line, they didn't feel like writing to obsolete hardware. XP doesn't run on a 386 and OSX won't run on a PPC 601, so your argument is still basically irrelevant.
Of course, I encourage you to seek a refund from the Gnome and KDE guys. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to give back what you've paid them for the software.
Sorry, but there is absolutely no reason why a window manager should not be able to run quickly on a 386.
There is a reason. They don't want to spend time on it, because they think the time is better spent elsewhere. Since at least some of the Gnome developers are doing this for free and graciously allowing me to use or modify the code for free I don't see that I have much to complain about.
Finally, if all you want to run is Metacity, G-P and gedit, I really don't understand why you are installing X at all. Everything you want to do can be done much faster with virtual consoles and your command line text editor of choice. Heck, both vim and emacs are better editors than gedit anyway.
You've actually come to an important realization. Everyone complains about asshole lawyers, but when you need to go to court, you definitely want the baddest asshole in the firm. And thus the cycle continues...
An extra 50 bucks for 6 gigs extra storage, at the price of a slightly larger form factor, seems like a no-brainer to me...
Which is probably why they still sell that model. One demographic thinks as you do, another puts more emphasis on asthetic factors. This way they can get cash from both. Me? I have a 20GB and it's getting full.
Bob Ballard has some pretty good evidence that the Black Sea filled from a small lake to something approaching its current depth in something like a week. There was evidently a terminal morraine across the Dardanelles and it failed.
It also rather neatly explains the interesting distribution of salt and fresh water in the Black Sea.
I don't think they took him seriously at all. He said he would go forward, even without the UN, yet France and Germany clung to the idea that they could stop him by delaying things at the UN. They should have examined options outside of the New York Chowder and Debating Society if they were serious about stopping him. Germany alone could have put a crimper on the effort by denying bases in the country that were used to stage units bound for Iraq. The cost to Germany would have been high (we probably would have pulled out of the bases entirely, which would hurt the German economy some), but there were non-violent options outside of the UN that could have been exercised. Everybody thought W was just a Texas blowhard who was pumping up his base at home. They were wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's the sharpest knife in the drawer either, but he is terribly earnest. That's why you have to take him seriously and not just roll your eyes.
Actually, not taking Bush seriously is part of the problem. If the rest of the world had seriously believed he was going into Iraq, UN support or no, they might have worked harder on convincing him (or Blair) otherwise. As it was they seemed to think that stalling in the UN would be sufficient, when it plainly wasn't.
Say what you want about him, but the man is a deadly serious True Believer. His belief is so strong and serious that even facts don't often get in the way.
Capital intensive industries like microchip production? We all know that low paying countries could never afford an expensive fab or clean room! Add to that that many of the nanotech processes seem to use silicon lithography (the exact same tech as chip fabs). C'mon, once it's down to production costs of equipment, the price will fall faster than Gerald Ford on roller skates.
I also don't know what you consider "blather." It's really simple macroeconomics. As markets get more tightly integrated, wages for jobs within the market tend to race for the bottom. It's one reason that seasonal farm help in the Midwest is now being paid the same as migrant workers out west. Since it's just as easy to ship food from California as it is from Iowa, Iowa can't afford to pay its workers any better than CA's since they'd be at a competitive disadvantage. A rising tide may lift boats, but it drowns swimmers.
And China is prospering? You might want to ask the people in rural China if embracing change has improved their lives. They're worse off than they were 20 years ago. Their wages and ability to move to find better paying work have been severely restricted to make sure that China's wage base stays ultra-cheap. The people in the cities are rich, but the rural workers in the Workers Paradise may be ripe for another Cultural Revolution within a few years.
Indian schools can produce well trained lab technicians just as easily as they produce well trained IT workers. Don't believe that you've found a well paying magic industry that is outsource-proof. The only thing that comes close is medicine, and as health insurance costs continue to grow, you can bet that doctors will start making less. Doctors in HMOs are already paid significantly less than their peers in pure private practice.
A true world market is emerging. That means a global minimum wage is developing, and it's a lot closer to the wages paid in the Third World than those paid in the First.
Meanwhile, bio/nanotech (among other fields) equipment is fricking expensive, which gives us a comparative advantage in those markets.
No it isn't. I expect cheap labtechs to be the next large group of jobs sent offshore. India has good technical schools, and with telecommunications costs so low, it will be fairly easy to outsource experiments to $1 a day techs over there.
We may be headed for a world in which the "living wage" is much closer to that paid in India than that paid in the United States or Europe. Considering the income gap in India, that isn't a good thing.
I installed Netware in a small bank in the 80s. Their desktops lacked floppy drives for the very reasons you have stated. This problem has been around for a while, but it has been dealt with. In a secure environment all external ports are disconnected except for the keyboard and mouse. I understand that the lack of granular control of USB devices in Windows is one reason that so many machines still ship with PS/2 ports for the keyboard and the mouse. The first thing that's done to these machines is that USB is disabled.
I'm a gun owner. You have assumed a hell of a lot, as I have never written that gun ownership should necessarily be banned. I was questioning whether or not it was an inalienable right. When making an argument about reading comprehension, it helps to check your own.
Where do rights come from and do they exist independent of the societies that espouse them is an interesting question. About 200 years ago, a group of people determined that the right to hold other people in bondage was an inalienable property right and later they used to their "inalienable" right to keep and bear arms to defend that property right. Were they correct? If people do not possess right to own other human beings and the fruits of their labors, then how can you justify the state doing the same thing in its prisons and mandatory community service? If it is not right for one man to coerce another's labor then no one, NO ONE has the right. Or, as is more likely, your argument is flawed.
Finally, to be clear, just saying that that a thing is a right does not make it so. You aren't Humpty Dumpty and words may have meanings different from what you say they are. I need some justification here that the right to keep and bear arms is indeed such a right. Otherwise, it appears that you wish to force your definition of "rights" down my throat, which is hardly in the spirit of your previous posts.
Even if I accept that inalienable inherent rights exist, you still need to prove to me that an unfettered right to keep and bear arms is one of them. To be harsh, just because a group of slaveholding genocidal hypocrites wrote it in to a document doesn't make it true. The Founders (not to mention the Romans) were most definitely flawed, so any justification that is based on their writings is most definitely open to debate.
The Constitution enshrined human bondage, but we realized that that was wrong (after a few million lives and uncounted dollars in destroyed property). It also refused to recognize that women could vote, so we changed that part, too. Is it not possible that the Second Amendment might be a relic of a bygone era? If so, then a justification for its continued existence is called for.
In moral, as opposed to political, philosophy it is important to figure out what the right thing is, and merely defining something as right and going forward is usually unacceptable. That predates the Romans.
And people have rights because they have them (our constitutional form of government is a product of natural law), not because a government grants them.
It's really easy to "win" an argument when you define your conclusion as an axiom. I'll need more convincing that the right to keep and bear arms decends from a natural law. Last I checked, it wasn't the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics or anything like that.
Given that Disney just lost their main content supplier (Pixar)
They still have the NFL, MLB, and the NBA, plus all those college games and PTI on ESPN (whooo, acronym overload!). Disney is much more than an animated movie house anymore. Also, imagine if Comcast managed to score exclusive on-demand rights to the classic kiddie movies with this deal. That would put the hurt on DirecTV in households with small children.
NASA's own history of the Mobile Launch concept offers a very tepid defense of the concept. In the end, if we had known that only one SV was going to be launched per moon mission, pad erection was the way to go. At the time the launch complex was being designed, the mission mode hadn't been decided. If Earth Orbit Rendezvous had won, as many as four Saturn Vs would have been used per mission to the moon. That would have dictated a much higher launch pace, and would have justified the VAB in full. As it turned out, I don't think the VAB was ever really "finished." At least one of the high bays was never used to assemble a Saturn V stack.
Apollo I wasn't set up on this tower. AS-204 was a Saturn IB, not a Saturn V. All of the manned Apollo launches prior to Apollo 8 were atop IBs, as they didn't carry lunar modules. The IBs were also used to send astronauts to Skylab.
Furthermore, the IBs weren't erected in the VAB. They were erected at the launch complex, outdoors, just like all of the Gemini and Mercury missions were. The mobile launch concept was only used for the Saturn V, and later the Shuttle. There is some argument as to whether or not the VAB was a colossal boondoggle, since we launched far fewer Saturn Vs that was originally planned. If a third launch pad had been built, they probably could have been erected on the pad as well, saving quite a bit of money.
The Math Department at my alma mater used to have a showing of this every year for the Seniors on the day after Independent Study theses were due. It would be nice if Disney would bring this out in a modern format, as I seem to remember that we had to set up the film projector to see it.
The (highly reasonable) assumption was that a computer that could routinely run multiple times for a few days was stable for much longer periods.
I actually don't think this is a reasonable assumption at all. I've installed realtime monitoring and data collection systems before, and this sort of thing isn't all that uncommon. Hardware and software that works perfectly with periodic restarts can't go the distance when left up for a long time. In fact, long term testing without reboots is sometimes the only way that subtle memory leaks are ever found. Losing a few bytes a day doesn't hurt you if you restart every day or so, but over a few months it can bring you to a screetching halt.
I know that Manned Spaceflight's software testing regime is quite good, but it looks like the unmanned folks cut a few corners. This is probably reasonable, however, since they aren't risking astronauts' lives, and Manned Spaceflights development methods are very expensive.
Bottom line, it WAS a bug that could only surface with thousands of files in flash, which is something they didn't try on the ground.
Which is a reminder to always test the boundary conditions, no matter how ridiculous they may seem. If it is possible to have that many files, then the regression test scripts should generate that many files during testing.
Slashdot Mirror
Now please answer my question -- why is your underwear in such a twist about software you don't even use?
So what you are saying is that you have the tools to do what you need to do, but you're still going to whine about something you have no intention of using? You don't like Gnome or KDE, so you don't use them. Great. Those of us that do use them do not want their capabilities limited because the base architecture was designed to run on hardware that hasn't been available new for nearly a decade now. I'm not suggesting that the requirements for XFree86 be raised, but I don't think that the requirements for the optional modern environments should be lowered either.
Of course, I encourage you to seek a refund from the Gnome and KDE guys. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to give back what you've paid them for the software.
There is a reason. They don't want to spend time on it, because they think the time is better spent elsewhere. Since at least some of the Gnome developers are doing this for free and graciously allowing me to use or modify the code for free I don't see that I have much to complain about.
Finally, if all you want to run is Metacity, G-P and gedit, I really don't understand why you are installing X at all. Everything you want to do can be done much faster with virtual consoles and your command line text editor of choice. Heck, both vim and emacs are better editors than gedit anyway.
You've actually come to an important realization. Everyone complains about asshole lawyers, but when you need to go to court, you definitely want the baddest asshole in the firm. And thus the cycle continues...
Which is probably why they still sell that model. One demographic thinks as you do, another puts more emphasis on asthetic factors. This way they can get cash from both. Me? I have a 20GB and it's getting full.
It also rather neatly explains the interesting distribution of salt and fresh water in the Black Sea.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's the sharpest knife in the drawer either, but he is terribly earnest. That's why you have to take him seriously and not just roll your eyes.
Say what you want about him, but the man is a deadly serious True Believer. His belief is so strong and serious that even facts don't often get in the way.
Too late.
I also don't know what you consider "blather." It's really simple macroeconomics. As markets get more tightly integrated, wages for jobs within the market tend to race for the bottom. It's one reason that seasonal farm help in the Midwest is now being paid the same as migrant workers out west. Since it's just as easy to ship food from California as it is from Iowa, Iowa can't afford to pay its workers any better than CA's since they'd be at a competitive disadvantage. A rising tide may lift boats, but it drowns swimmers.
And China is prospering? You might want to ask the people in rural China if embracing change has improved their lives. They're worse off than they were 20 years ago. Their wages and ability to move to find better paying work have been severely restricted to make sure that China's wage base stays ultra-cheap. The people in the cities are rich, but the rural workers in the Workers Paradise may be ripe for another Cultural Revolution within a few years.
A true world market is emerging. That means a global minimum wage is developing, and it's a lot closer to the wages paid in the Third World than those paid in the First.
Meanwhile, bio/nanotech (among other fields) equipment is fricking expensive, which gives us a comparative advantage in those markets. No it isn't. I expect cheap labtechs to be the next large group of jobs sent offshore. India has good technical schools, and with telecommunications costs so low, it will be fairly easy to outsource experiments to $1 a day techs over there. We may be headed for a world in which the "living wage" is much closer to that paid in India than that paid in the United States or Europe. Considering the income gap in India, that isn't a good thing.
I installed Netware in a small bank in the 80s. Their desktops lacked floppy drives for the very reasons you have stated. This problem has been around for a while, but it has been dealt with. In a secure environment all external ports are disconnected except for the keyboard and mouse. I understand that the lack of granular control of USB devices in Windows is one reason that so many machines still ship with PS/2 ports for the keyboard and the mouse. The first thing that's done to these machines is that USB is disabled.
Only +2? Damn, mine will still be negative!
Hey bub, keep your sick fetishes to yerself. This here's a family site!
Sorry, couldn't resist!
Where do rights come from and do they exist independent of the societies that espouse them is an interesting question. About 200 years ago, a group of people determined that the right to hold other people in bondage was an inalienable property right and later they used to their "inalienable" right to keep and bear arms to defend that property right. Were they correct? If people do not possess right to own other human beings and the fruits of their labors, then how can you justify the state doing the same thing in its prisons and mandatory community service? If it is not right for one man to coerce another's labor then no one, NO ONE has the right. Or, as is more likely, your argument is flawed.
Finally, to be clear, just saying that that a thing is a right does not make it so. You aren't Humpty Dumpty and words may have meanings different from what you say they are. I need some justification here that the right to keep and bear arms is indeed such a right. Otherwise, it appears that you wish to force your definition of "rights" down my throat, which is hardly in the spirit of your previous posts.
Even if I accept that inalienable inherent rights exist, you still need to prove to me that an unfettered right to keep and bear arms is one of them. To be harsh, just because a group of slaveholding genocidal hypocrites wrote it in to a document doesn't make it true. The Founders (not to mention the Romans) were most definitely flawed, so any justification that is based on their writings is most definitely open to debate. The Constitution enshrined human bondage, but we realized that that was wrong (after a few million lives and uncounted dollars in destroyed property). It also refused to recognize that women could vote, so we changed that part, too. Is it not possible that the Second Amendment might be a relic of a bygone era? If so, then a justification for its continued existence is called for. In moral, as opposed to political, philosophy it is important to figure out what the right thing is, and merely defining something as right and going forward is usually unacceptable. That predates the Romans.
It's really easy to "win" an argument when you define your conclusion as an axiom. I'll need more convincing that the right to keep and bear arms decends from a natural law. Last I checked, it wasn't the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics or anything like that.
They still have the NFL, MLB, and the NBA, plus all those college games and PTI on ESPN (whooo, acronym overload!). Disney is much more than an animated movie house anymore. Also, imagine if Comcast managed to score exclusive on-demand rights to the classic kiddie movies with this deal. That would put the hurt on DirecTV in households with small children.
NASA's own history of the Mobile Launch concept offers a very tepid defense of the concept. In the end, if we had known that only one SV was going to be launched per moon mission, pad erection was the way to go. At the time the launch complex was being designed, the mission mode hadn't been decided. If Earth Orbit Rendezvous had won, as many as four Saturn Vs would have been used per mission to the moon. That would have dictated a much higher launch pace, and would have justified the VAB in full. As it turned out, I don't think the VAB was ever really "finished." At least one of the high bays was never used to assemble a Saturn V stack.
Furthermore, the IBs weren't erected in the VAB. They were erected at the launch complex, outdoors, just like all of the Gemini and Mercury missions were. The mobile launch concept was only used for the Saturn V, and later the Shuttle. There is some argument as to whether or not the VAB was a colossal boondoggle, since we launched far fewer Saturn Vs that was originally planned. If a third launch pad had been built, they probably could have been erected on the pad as well, saving quite a bit of money.
The Math Department at my alma mater used to have a showing of this every year for the Seniors on the day after Independent Study theses were due. It would be nice if Disney would bring this out in a modern format, as I seem to remember that we had to set up the film projector to see it.
I actually don't think this is a reasonable assumption at all. I've installed realtime monitoring and data collection systems before, and this sort of thing isn't all that uncommon. Hardware and software that works perfectly with periodic restarts can't go the distance when left up for a long time. In fact, long term testing without reboots is sometimes the only way that subtle memory leaks are ever found. Losing a few bytes a day doesn't hurt you if you restart every day or so, but over a few months it can bring you to a screetching halt.
I know that Manned Spaceflight's software testing regime is quite good, but it looks like the unmanned folks cut a few corners. This is probably reasonable, however, since they aren't risking astronauts' lives, and Manned Spaceflights development methods are very expensive.
Which is a reminder to always test the boundary conditions, no matter how ridiculous they may seem. If it is possible to have that many files, then the regression test scripts should generate that many files during testing.
At least it's fixable.