I have this with KDE (kompose) and I've never found it useful for drag and drop operations. Perhaps it's because KDE's tabbed file manager means most of my dnd operations are in the same window. Most of the time I'm copying files onto a remote server with SFTP and that's all done in the file manager. Worst case scenario I alt-tab to the window I want to have focus to drop the file, or I have that window on my second monitor.
It's cool that it works for you, but expose/kompose is completely useless to me. I guess it all depends on how you use your computer.
Now, I'm not saying blaming games for real-life problems is any sort of a solution, but let's quit denying that games have an impact on our lives. Responsibility begins and ends with users of the games and parents of young children.
It's clear that they're making it more complicated than necessary to achieve the same functional effect.
I wonder why they wouldn't start by using cheap LCDs like l those used on Tiger handheld games (and the ones that come in Happy Meals). They could do that with only a small cost increase over a regular keyboard. You wouldn't get color, but add a backlight source and they'd be viewable in the dark and work just as well as color keys.
Besides, failure rate on those simple LCDs is near zero. This is digital watch-level technology.
The problem is that their compiler specifically excludes AMD chips from taking code paths that work perfectly on it, such as SSE2 optimizations. I think that's much different than, say, not running a particular FP operation on AMD chips because it relies on a P4 trick, or something like that.
The Intel compiler should check for features, not chip brand. Eg, if SSE2 is reported as available, then use it, else use the generic code path.
Not to mention the fact that AMD still benchmarks very favorably in games and other CPU-intensive applications, so the slowdown can't be huge.
However, I doubt AMD would claim this if it weren't true. They still have a business to run, unlike SCO, and don't want to damage their reputation.
I suspect that the "crash" part is more conjecture than fact, since the unoptimized code paths might be assumed to be lower quality in many ways. Or perhaps AMD found a single instance of a crash that occurs in one of the unoptimized code paths and even if Intel didn't mean for it to be there, they're still on the hook for that path in the first place.
I have a feeling AMD has been working on this lawsuit for several years, so it will be interesting when they do finally submit the evidence to the court.
No, it's because there is no need for anyone to every try an Itanium. Even supercomputer users can get more bang for their buck by clustering more x86s together.
I agree with you. I think Jay-Z stinks, but real rapping is all about off-the-cuff stuff like Jay-Z does. It may not always be deep, but it is interesting and you have to hand it to someone who can pull a song together on the spot like that.
8 Mile is a good movie that shows some of this scene.
Since we're on the subject of remixes, I think it's important to point out that many remixes are not legal. The folks at http://www.downhillbattle.org/ are working to let mixers into the ballgame, so to speak.
Also from the folks at downhillbattle.org comes http://bannedmusic.org/ which distributes some music that has been banned for copyright reasons (mixes and sampling). Included are the Double Black Album (Metallica's black album mixed with Jay-Z's black album) and the Grey Album (Beatle's white album mixed with Jay-Z's black album). There is much more stuff there, too, so check it out if you're into music advocacy.
Why do you find it hard to believe? Because McAfee and Norton are big names? Because they're more popular? Life's full of examples where the underdog is the superior product, from OS X vs. Windows to Saucony vs. Nike.
IMO, AVG and Avast! are both better antivirus packages than McAfee or Norton.
So at best this particular instance of MS ignoring spyware may not hurt you if you're smart enough to recognize it as spyware, but what about the future? How can you possibly trust such a product when the programmers are intentionally not removing certain spyware?
And I disagree that most users will remove it anyway. The huge majority of users will accept the default recommendations.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Go tell it to the family in Africa living on 15 cents a day.
You may think what you do because you somehow believe that the rest of the world is like the US, but truth be told there are many, many countries which simply don't have any jobs available that pay enough to even feed a worker's family. There is no infrastructure for entrepreneurs. There is almost no educational infrastructure. These people can't emigrate to another country and get a job because they have not the funds to do so nor the education to be successful if they did.
If we help them build that infrastructure then we give them the tools to help themselves.
But I wonder if this will affect enterprise adoption of MS Antispyware. Even the diehard Windows admins where I work will admit this revelation makes that product less attractive, which is a shame because it used to be possibly the best antispyware product around.
I responded to the macro vs. micro point elsewhere in this thread, but just to sum it up...
Microevolution and macroevolution both describe the same evolutionary process and that process is the one championed by Evolutionary Theory. The Theory doesn't try to distinguish between macro and microevolution because the difference is arbitrary. Evolution doesn't even try to define what a species is.
You are correct. The micro vs. macro argument is completely absurd because they both describe identical processes.
As the argument goes, macroevolution occurs at some arbitrary point in microevolution or perhaps after some impossibly high number of microevolutionary steps. Evolutionary theory puts forth no such notion, so why creationists and IDers argue this point is a mystery to me, unless they're just trying to draw discussion away from their pseudoscience explanations..
I'm likely not the right person to answer this, but I think a law is more aptly described as a description of what is happening. For instance, "gravity makes things fall down" is a law (or my wording of it) while Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is the actual nuts and bolts about how it works. Einstein's theory cannot ever be a law.
1. "Just a theory" is a term only used by non-scientists. To scientists a "theory" is much more than a guess. A theory is a proposed explanation based on facts. It is an observed fact that species change over time and the Theory of Evolution attempts to explain why this change happens.
2. The Red Queen Hypothesis has not been observed, but evolution has. We can watch multicellular life evolve before our eyes in petrie dishes in laboratories. Even the fossil record is a good way to observe evolution in action as we have fossiles documenting species' changes one after the other. You can't look at these fossils and say, oh, well these just happen to be two very similar life forms that lived one right after the other and these gap fossils are also just happenstance.
I believe antievolutionists are just trying to force their perception of the facts into their notion of reality, but that's "just a theory".
Slashdot Mirror
I have this with KDE (kompose) and I've never found it useful for drag and drop operations. Perhaps it's because KDE's tabbed file manager means most of my dnd operations are in the same window. Most of the time I'm copying files onto a remote server with SFTP and that's all done in the file manager. Worst case scenario I alt-tab to the window I want to have focus to drop the file, or I have that window on my second monitor.
It's cool that it works for you, but expose/kompose is completely useless to me. I guess it all depends on how you use your computer.
Slashdotters share their experiences: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/11/ 1611253&tid=133
Now, I'm not saying blaming games for real-life problems is any sort of a solution, but let's quit denying that games have an impact on our lives. Responsibility begins and ends with users of the games and parents of young children.
No it isn't. There is more in the RDBMS world than SQL Server (and MS ODBC), the only forms of SQL I can find that use 'user' as a reserved word.
Besides, all forms of SQL should have a way to differentiate between a reserved word and a column or table name, such as using ticks like in mySQL.
You can do that by downloading the xpi and installing it locally from your computer.
It's clear that they're making it more complicated than necessary to achieve the same functional effect.
I wonder why they wouldn't start by using cheap LCDs like l those used on Tiger handheld games (and the ones that come in Happy Meals). They could do that with only a small cost increase over a regular keyboard. You wouldn't get color, but add a backlight source and they'd be viewable in the dark and work just as well as color keys.
Besides, failure rate on those simple LCDs is near zero. This is digital watch-level technology.
They'll patent the snap-in system.
Ten times more pathetic? How ironic that it's raining.
The problem is that their compiler specifically excludes AMD chips from taking code paths that work perfectly on it, such as SSE2 optimizations. I think that's much different than, say, not running a particular FP operation on AMD chips because it relies on a P4 trick, or something like that.
The Intel compiler should check for features, not chip brand. Eg, if SSE2 is reported as available, then use it, else use the generic code path.
Not to mention the fact that AMD still benchmarks very favorably in games and other CPU-intensive applications, so the slowdown can't be huge.
However, I doubt AMD would claim this if it weren't true. They still have a business to run, unlike SCO, and don't want to damage their reputation.
I suspect that the "crash" part is more conjecture than fact, since the unoptimized code paths might be assumed to be lower quality in many ways. Or perhaps AMD found a single instance of a crash that occurs in one of the unoptimized code paths and even if Intel didn't mean for it to be there, they're still on the hook for that path in the first place.
I have a feeling AMD has been working on this lawsuit for several years, so it will be interesting when they do finally submit the evidence to the court.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Macs with even higher price tags that suck at integer operations.
No, it's because there is no need for anyone to every try an Itanium. Even supercomputer users can get more bang for their buck by clustering more x86s together.
Ok, show me once instance of spyware installing VNC. If you can't do it, then it shouldn't be listed.
How about showing me where MS Antispyware lists Remote Desktop as a potentially dangerous application. Can't do it? That's what I thought.
Don't be a dumbass.
They should have measured SLOCs.
I agree with you. I think Jay-Z stinks, but real rapping is all about off-the-cuff stuff like Jay-Z does. It may not always be deep, but it is interesting and you have to hand it to someone who can pull a song together on the spot like that.
8 Mile is a good movie that shows some of this scene.
Since we're on the subject of remixes, I think it's important to point out that many remixes are not legal. The folks at http://www.downhillbattle.org/ are working to let mixers into the ballgame, so to speak.
Also from the folks at downhillbattle.org comes http://bannedmusic.org/ which distributes some music that has been banned for copyright reasons (mixes and sampling). Included are the Double Black Album (Metallica's black album mixed with Jay-Z's black album) and the Grey Album (Beatle's white album mixed with Jay-Z's black album). There is much more stuff there, too, so check it out if you're into music advocacy.
Why do you find it hard to believe? Because McAfee and Norton are big names? Because they're more popular? Life's full of examples where the underdog is the superior product, from OS X vs. Windows to Saucony vs. Nike.
IMO, AVG and Avast! are both better antivirus packages than McAfee or Norton.
So at best this particular instance of MS ignoring spyware may not hurt you if you're smart enough to recognize it as spyware, but what about the future? How can you possibly trust such a product when the programmers are intentionally not removing certain spyware?
And I disagree that most users will remove it anyway. The huge majority of users will accept the default recommendations.
It's called NoScript and it installed fine for me as a normal user on Ubuntu (both FF 1.04 and Deer Park A1).
I highly recommend the script. Even Slashdot tries to run a non-slashdot.org script (falkag.net) that gets blocked.
Yeah right. I use RHEL AS 3 and I can't wait until I change it to a Debian system. Yum and the like are just poor replicas of apt-get.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Go tell it to the family in Africa living on 15 cents a day.
You may think what you do because you somehow believe that the rest of the world is like the US, but truth be told there are many, many countries which simply don't have any jobs available that pay enough to even feed a worker's family. There is no infrastructure for entrepreneurs. There is almost no educational infrastructure. These people can't emigrate to another country and get a job because they have not the funds to do so nor the education to be successful if they did.
If we help them build that infrastructure then we give them the tools to help themselves.
But I wonder if this will affect enterprise adoption of MS Antispyware. Even the diehard Windows admins where I work will admit this revelation makes that product less attractive, which is a shame because it used to be possibly the best antispyware product around.
I responded to the macro vs. micro point elsewhere in this thread, but just to sum it up...
Microevolution and macroevolution both describe the same evolutionary process and that process is the one championed by Evolutionary Theory. The Theory doesn't try to distinguish between macro and microevolution because the difference is arbitrary. Evolution doesn't even try to define what a species is.
You are correct. The micro vs. macro argument is completely absurd because they both describe identical processes.
As the argument goes, macroevolution occurs at some arbitrary point in microevolution or perhaps after some impossibly high number of microevolutionary steps. Evolutionary theory puts forth no such notion, so why creationists and IDers argue this point is a mystery to me, unless they're just trying to draw discussion away from their pseudoscience explanations..
I'm likely not the right person to answer this, but I think a law is more aptly described as a description of what is happening. For instance, "gravity makes things fall down" is a law (or my wording of it) while Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is the actual nuts and bolts about how it works. Einstein's theory cannot ever be a law.
A few things:
1. "Just a theory" is a term only used by non-scientists. To scientists a "theory" is much more than a guess. A theory is a proposed explanation based on facts. It is an observed fact that species change over time and the Theory of Evolution attempts to explain why this change happens.
2. The Red Queen Hypothesis has not been observed, but evolution has. We can watch multicellular life evolve before our eyes in petrie dishes in laboratories. Even the fossil record is a good way to observe evolution in action as we have fossiles documenting species' changes one after the other. You can't look at these fossils and say, oh, well these just happen to be two very similar life forms that lived one right after the other and these gap fossils are also just happenstance.
I believe antievolutionists are just trying to force their perception of the facts into their notion of reality, but that's "just a theory".