I think I have some agreement with you. I've only been using Gnome 3 for maybe two months (after a few weeks of trying to like Unity, I don't like), but I can't find too much fault with it.
But one large problem is not being able to move dialogue boxes. (The lack of a proper task bar shits me as well, I've got a sort of one via an extension, and the inability to change the hot corner for the expose like thingy, I want it like on the SO's Mac, and a show desktop in the other top corner.)
Personally I think that all the idiots who say it is a tablet environment obviously used it. It makes large use of the mouse and just doesn't work as well in tablet mode. E.g. the stupid hot corner (bottom right) to activate the various things that would otherwise sit in the notification or status area -- is almost impossible to hit correctly with my pen when using the laptop in tablet mode.
Overall, Gnome 3 has a number of regressions from Gnome 2. I suspect that Gnome 2 with Compiz and fancy effects would be better than Gnome 3, but am not sure. However, I'm not throwing out Gnome 3 yet; maybe in a couple of months I'll try whatever KDE is available for Ubuntu 12.04).
In some places (parts of Australia for example) the law simply says you aren't allowed to drive and have any trace of THC in your hair/saliva/blood. This works because the drug is already outlawed. However, it's not fair to say that the drug is legal, but you aren't allowed to use it within a week (or whatever) of driving.
However, as with alcohol, the problem isn't the numbers, it's the impairment. With alcohol now, the law doesn't even care about impairment. If your blood alcohol level (as measured by a machine testing the amount of alcohol in your breath[1]) is higher than X, that's illegal.
The solution is to obviously remove the numbers from the equation, and come up with a objective test for impairment. Walk along the line one foot placed just in front of the other, for example[2]. This would also apply to people who haven't got enough sleep recently.
Another option would be to simply outlaw driving dangerously or in a fashion that could cause harm to others. Then, for all the drunks and stoners, and people who just haven't slept properly in the last three days, if they can drive safely without swerving, or crashing, they can get home fine. But, if they swerve, then pull 'em over and book 'em. Perhaps.
A difficult situation. I just hope the solution doesn't reduce people's freedoms any more.
Footnotes: 1. Want to get busted without drinking more than a tiny amount of booze? Just before you breath into the machine, swill some whiskey around in your mouth. Just a tablespoon should be enough. 2. This isn't objective, because many people can't actually do this because their balance is poor, but they can still drive a care perfectly well.
I've stopped running bitcoin stories, please pay me your nickels to: 1MJpSvjbSLEYNcGRHMWB6czui7P3dvwCf9 If possible please convert to bitcoin before paying me. Thanks.
Douglas Adams thought that open communication between different languages and cultures would lead to terrible ongoing and widespread warfare. But I say he was a pessimist. And also unable to see the real world.
You don't need open communication to lead to terrible ongoing and widespread warfare, we have that right now without the open communication!
All we really need for war is a couple of people who decide that they would rather have the other person's stuff (or only one person deciding that). And for that person to have control over an army or whatever.
Dewey isn't exactly easy. Try it sometime, pick some random subjects (e.g. English-French dictionary for French speakers learning English) and try and catalog it. It'll have about one correct number, but that number will be different to a French-English dictionary for English speakers learning English. By different I mean, unless you know about Dewey you might think that the two are quite unrelated apart from the general category (languages).
Hope in a taxi or bus, drive around, turn off transmitter, walk some way, hope on another bus, turn it on again, turn it off again. Basically keep moving, make the movement sufficiently random, any you won't get caught. OK, a car battery is a bit heavy, but it's not that heavy that you can't carry it around on your lap.
Regarding the "oh noz terrorists", not everything has to be linked to terrorists, isn't it more likely that in the event of a "terrorist" attack, the system would be brought down by people just trying to call the emergency number or friends and family? And anyway, haven't I read about various authorities around the world wanting a switch to turn off the phone networks in the event of a terrorist attack?
So when the "terrorists" do it, it's bad, but when the authorities do it, it's just fine...
Take comics. I'm visiting websites for these comics every day (or whenever I think a new comic is up, normally when notified by RSS). The best place for me to be notified about a new series, or hell, anything is on the website (linked to from the RSS feed). Hell, do what some of the artists do and just have a "comic" (in the same place as the regular comics) with text describing whatever it is. But want me to like you on Facebook so I can see an exclusive series? Not happening! Multiple reasons, including that I might not want to like my account with some of the weird shit I read, I might not want to let the weird authors have access to my info, and most importantly, I don't use Facebook at all.
And, as noted by someone else, if you've got a crap corporate website, maybe it's about time you made it better. If a sports team had regular highlights posted, special deals, regular commentary, and similar, then a fan probably will check back regularly. But maybe you need to distinguish between the boring shit (financial statements) and what people actually want to see. And maybe put all the boring shit into a subdir and link to it only from the footer (maybe hidden behind an about link).
Anyway, I think you aren't really addressing the points I was trying to make, which aren't so much about advertising, but about people pushing people towards Facebook (and other "social media") to the detriment of spaces they actually control and can brand without having third party brands dilute the primary brand.
I don't understand why companies and individuals with a "brand" are so willing to put that brand behind Facebook's. E.g. webcomic artists who say, "see this Facebook exclusive comic", or companies that have Facebook exclusive deals. They should be using Facebook to drive people towards their primary site, not use their primary site to drive people towards a third party who doesn't really care about them, and that may disappear within the year (or whenever a new website comes up).
So all these brands that are on Facebook and not pushing people off Facebook are doing it wrong.
Yeah, winning 200000 dollars is a really stupid move. And winning a similar amount from Yahoo is also really stupid. I mean this man, being able to get a nice amount of money and get some search engines to stop associating his name with crime, is totally retarded. Any sensible person would have said, "yeah, I'm being associated with criminals when people search for my name, nothing wrong with that, and who needs money anyway?". Right?
Is it possible for white people to be racist against other white people? Or black people to be racist against other black people?
Well, OK, it is. Irish people were treated shockingly in US history. But the Irish were considered a different race to the other whites. So I don't think that counts.
Better question, is it possible to be racist against the "race" that society perceives you to be as?
I accept I probably have internalized some negative thoughts about people who look different to me. But I'm working on getting rid of these thoughts.
Well done! Your anecdote trumps everything! You get 50 thousand "blacks are racist against whites too!" points!
You win the Internet!
Seriously though, racism sucks. But your experience is, I'm sure, pretty rare compared to the harassment that non-whites face in the USA (and other majority white countries).
I don't like racism, and I think that racism is wrong. However, so far as it goes, racism (of the verbal and written kind, which is what is being discussed I thought) against "whites" is less damaging to both the individual and society as a whole, than racism against "non-whites". This is because whites hold a superior position socially compared to non-whites, and are a non-marginalized, and privileged majority.
I disagree. However, as I said below, racism matters most when it relates to "a group wielding power against others in ways that cause real harm". So, racism against whites in the USA is almost irrelevant; whites are the most powerful "race" (a socially constructed concept).
People don't seem to like that sort of argument though, I got modded down -_-
Got any, I don't know, citations? Any evidence that "highly qualified whites" were denied a job that was instead given to a "less qualified but black candidate"?
I bet you also complain about women getting jobs that should really be going to men... Oh noz, the womenz and the blackz are stealing my jobz!
I don't really give a shit if a job was given to an otherwise equal "black" candidate instead of a "white" one. And if a black candidate was given a job despite being less suitable for the job (it's not just about qualifications and experience, but also about personality and other less tangible aspects), then I would have a problem with that. But I wouldn't care too much, because frankly white people generally have an easier time of it. It's called white privilege -- white people in a country like the USA have advantages simple because of the color their skin. Racism.
I didn't deny that racism is racism. And while it isn't acceptable, the simple fact is, that in majority "white" countries racism against "white" people generally doesn't actually matter if you look at it from a society perspective. Because ultimately white people are not marginalize or persecuted, and so racism doesn't contribute to the marginalization or persecution.
The funny thing about racism is that it generally doesn't matter unless it is against a group that historically has been persecuted and marginalized. So, racism against "black" people is a problem, because it re-enforces that they are a marginalized and persecuted group. However, in most places "white" people are not a marginalized and persecuted group. So while racism against "white" people is wrong, it is not socially such a big deal.
Except where it is a big deal, such as certain parts of Africa. In those places "white" people are a persecuted group, and there are racist policies by governments. (And yet, it is still the case that overall, white people have a better deal in Africa than the majority of black people. The only people who have it better, generally, are those in government and the rich.)
You are, I suspect, just trolling. Because racism against white people in the USA doesn't matter, and is barely notable compared to racism against others. (Yes, historically there was a lot of relevant racism against white people, from other white people. The Irish, for example, got a bad deal for some time. But today, racism against white people is quite irrelevant.)
If someone is putting you in solitary confinement for hundreds of days, I think you'd be wanting to plead to something if it will get you out. I'm pretty sure that the only reason Manning is willing to plead to anything is because of the continual mistreatment and denial of rights (including that of a speedy trial).
I get around the problem by not having any friends. Either online or in real life.
I really don't want to be judged by the company I keep on Slashdot. People's tastes around here are just bizarre. Natalie Portman? Covered in grits? Petrified? Let alone the obsession with wanting to Beowulf everything.
Yes, put them in jail. But only because they released classified information. And if it's good enough for Bradley Manning to be locked up and tortured, then it is good enough for these people. Oh wait, these people didn't release political damaging and embarrassing information that demonstrated illegal activities by the US military.
I'm not even convinced that Bradley Manning even did anything. He's alleged to have done something, and he's been charged with various "crimes", but innocent until proven guilt amirite? And even if "proven" guilty (or if he admits guilt) I wouldn't be too sure, as he's been tortured (solitary confinement for hundreds of days) and denied access to a speedy trial, I'm sure there are heaps of other irregularities with regards his case.
If it works, don't upgrade now. When the hardware fails, or you want to upgrade the system, or vitalize it, go with the Free, modern and supported DOS.
Slashdot Mirror
... obviously haven't used it.
And I did preview the fucking thing first as well...
I think I have some agreement with you. I've only been using Gnome 3 for maybe two months (after a few weeks of trying to like Unity, I don't like), but I can't find too much fault with it.
But one large problem is not being able to move dialogue boxes. (The lack of a proper task bar shits me as well, I've got a sort of one via an extension, and the inability to change the hot corner for the expose like thingy, I want it like on the SO's Mac, and a show desktop in the other top corner.)
Personally I think that all the idiots who say it is a tablet environment obviously used it. It makes large use of the mouse and just doesn't work as well in tablet mode. E.g. the stupid hot corner (bottom right) to activate the various things that would otherwise sit in the notification or status area -- is almost impossible to hit correctly with my pen when using the laptop in tablet mode.
Overall, Gnome 3 has a number of regressions from Gnome 2. I suspect that Gnome 2 with Compiz and fancy effects would be better than Gnome 3, but am not sure. However, I'm not throwing out Gnome 3 yet; maybe in a couple of months I'll try whatever KDE is available for Ubuntu 12.04).
In some places (parts of Australia for example) the law simply says you aren't allowed to drive and have any trace of THC in your hair/saliva/blood. This works because the drug is already outlawed. However, it's not fair to say that the drug is legal, but you aren't allowed to use it within a week (or whatever) of driving.
However, as with alcohol, the problem isn't the numbers, it's the impairment. With alcohol now, the law doesn't even care about impairment. If your blood alcohol level (as measured by a machine testing the amount of alcohol in your breath[1]) is higher than X, that's illegal.
The solution is to obviously remove the numbers from the equation, and come up with a objective test for impairment. Walk along the line one foot placed just in front of the other, for example[2]. This would also apply to people who haven't got enough sleep recently.
Another option would be to simply outlaw driving dangerously or in a fashion that could cause harm to others. Then, for all the drunks and stoners, and people who just haven't slept properly in the last three days, if they can drive safely without swerving, or crashing, they can get home fine. But, if they swerve, then pull 'em over and book 'em. Perhaps.
A difficult situation. I just hope the solution doesn't reduce people's freedoms any more.
Footnotes:
1. Want to get busted without drinking more than a tiny amount of booze? Just before you breath into the machine, swill some whiskey around in your mouth. Just a tablespoon should be enough.
2. This isn't objective, because many people can't actually do this because their balance is poor, but they can still drive a care perfectly well.
I've stopped running bitcoin stories, please pay me your nickels to:
1MJpSvjbSLEYNcGRHMWB6czui7P3dvwCf9
If possible please convert to bitcoin before paying me. Thanks.
Douglas Adams thought that open communication between different languages and cultures would lead to terrible ongoing and widespread warfare. But I say he was a pessimist. And also unable to see the real world.
You don't need open communication to lead to terrible ongoing and widespread warfare, we have that right now without the open communication!
All we really need for war is a couple of people who decide that they would rather have the other person's stuff (or only one person deciding that). And for that person to have control over an army or whatever.
Dewey isn't exactly easy. Try it sometime, pick some random subjects (e.g. English-French dictionary for French speakers learning English) and try and catalog it. It'll have about one correct number, but that number will be different to a French-English dictionary for English speakers learning English. By different I mean, unless you know about Dewey you might think that the two are quite unrelated apart from the general category (languages).
Hope in a taxi or bus, drive around, turn off transmitter, walk some way, hope on another bus, turn it on again, turn it off again. Basically keep moving, make the movement sufficiently random, any you won't get caught. OK, a car battery is a bit heavy, but it's not that heavy that you can't carry it around on your lap.
Regarding the "oh noz terrorists", not everything has to be linked to terrorists, isn't it more likely that in the event of a "terrorist" attack, the system would be brought down by people just trying to call the emergency number or friends and family? And anyway, haven't I read about various authorities around the world wanting a switch to turn off the phone networks in the event of a terrorist attack?
So when the "terrorists" do it, it's bad, but when the authorities do it, it's just fine...
Take comics. I'm visiting websites for these comics every day (or whenever I think a new comic is up, normally when notified by RSS). The best place for me to be notified about a new series, or hell, anything is on the website (linked to from the RSS feed). Hell, do what some of the artists do and just have a "comic" (in the same place as the regular comics) with text describing whatever it is. But want me to like you on Facebook so I can see an exclusive series? Not happening! Multiple reasons, including that I might not want to like my account with some of the weird shit I read, I might not want to let the weird authors have access to my info, and most importantly, I don't use Facebook at all .
And, as noted by someone else, if you've got a crap corporate website, maybe it's about time you made it better. If a sports team had regular highlights posted, special deals, regular commentary, and similar, then a fan probably will check back regularly. But maybe you need to distinguish between the boring shit (financial statements) and what people actually want to see. And maybe put all the boring shit into a subdir and link to it only from the footer (maybe hidden behind an about link).
Anyway, I think you aren't really addressing the points I was trying to make, which aren't so much about advertising, but about people pushing people towards Facebook (and other "social media") to the detriment of spaces they actually control and can brand without having third party brands dilute the primary brand.
I don't understand why companies and individuals with a "brand" are so willing to put that brand behind Facebook's. E.g. webcomic artists who say, "see this Facebook exclusive comic", or companies that have Facebook exclusive deals. They should be using Facebook to drive people towards their primary site, not use their primary site to drive people towards a third party who doesn't really care about them, and that may disappear within the year (or whenever a new website comes up).
So all these brands that are on Facebook and not pushing people off Facebook are doing it wrong.
Yeah, winning 200000 dollars is a really stupid move. And winning a similar amount from Yahoo is also really stupid. I mean this man, being able to get a nice amount of money and get some search engines to stop associating his name with crime, is totally retarded. Any sensible person would have said, "yeah, I'm being associated with criminals when people search for my name, nothing wrong with that, and who needs money anyway?". Right?
So wait, who am I racist against?
Is it possible for white people to be racist against other white people? Or black people to be racist against other black people?
Well, OK, it is. Irish people were treated shockingly in US history. But the Irish were considered a different race to the other whites. So I don't think that counts.
Better question, is it possible to be racist against the "race" that society perceives you to be as?
I accept I probably have internalized some negative thoughts about people who look different to me. But I'm working on getting rid of these thoughts.
Well done! Your anecdote trumps everything! You get 50 thousand "blacks are racist against whites too!" points!
You win the Internet!
Seriously though, racism sucks. But your experience is, I'm sure, pretty rare compared to the harassment that non-whites face in the USA (and other majority white countries).
I don't like racism, and I think that racism is wrong. However, so far as it goes, racism (of the verbal and written kind, which is what is being discussed I thought) against "whites" is less damaging to both the individual and society as a whole, than racism against "non-whites". This is because whites hold a superior position socially compared to non-whites, and are a non-marginalized, and privileged majority.
And yes, all racists are a bunch of ignorant bastards. 1) Race is a social construct. 2) Race is a meaningless construct (why is Obama black and not white?). 3) People with blue eyes are just not as good as those with brown eyes, science proves it!
Are you calling me racist?
I disagree. However, as I said below, racism matters most when it relates to "a group wielding power against others in ways that cause real harm". So, racism against whites in the USA is almost irrelevant; whites are the most powerful "race" (a socially constructed concept).
People don't seem to like that sort of argument though, I got modded down -_-
Inciteful more like it, amirite?
Got any, I don't know, citations? Any evidence that "highly qualified whites" were denied a job that was instead given to a "less qualified but black candidate"?
I bet you also complain about women getting jobs that should really be going to men ... Oh noz, the womenz and the blackz are stealing my jobz!
I don't really give a shit if a job was given to an otherwise equal "black" candidate instead of a "white" one. And if a black candidate was given a job despite being less suitable for the job (it's not just about qualifications and experience, but also about personality and other less tangible aspects), then I would have a problem with that. But I wouldn't care too much, because frankly white people generally have an easier time of it. It's called white privilege -- white people in a country like the USA have advantages simple because of the color their skin. Racism.
I didn't deny that racism is racism. And while it isn't acceptable, the simple fact is, that in majority "white" countries racism against "white" people generally doesn't actually matter if you look at it from a society perspective. Because ultimately white people are not marginalize or persecuted, and so racism doesn't contribute to the marginalization or persecution.
The funny thing about racism is that it generally doesn't matter unless it is against a group that historically has been persecuted and marginalized. So, racism against "black" people is a problem, because it re-enforces that they are a marginalized and persecuted group. However, in most places "white" people are not a marginalized and persecuted group. So while racism against "white" people is wrong, it is not socially such a big deal.
Except where it is a big deal, such as certain parts of Africa. In those places "white" people are a persecuted group, and there are racist policies by governments. (And yet, it is still the case that overall, white people have a better deal in Africa than the majority of black people. The only people who have it better, generally, are those in government and the rich.)
You are, I suspect, just trolling. Because racism against white people in the USA doesn't matter, and is barely notable compared to racism against others. (Yes, historically there was a lot of relevant racism against white people, from other white people. The Irish, for example, got a bad deal for some time. But today, racism against white people is quite irrelevant.)
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2003-06-19/
Fast, it's for people who know about shit. Shit like Unix/Linux. seriously.
Well, at least you don't know that I'm a dog. Wait, why is there an add for chewy toys on this supposed tech site?
Who says I'm a "he"? ^_^
(I'm pretty sure I've never stated whether I considered myself male, female, or other.)
If someone is putting you in solitary confinement for hundreds of days, I think you'd be wanting to plead to something if it will get you out.
I'm pretty sure that the only reason Manning is willing to plead to anything is because of the continual mistreatment and denial of rights (including that of a speedy trial).
I get around the problem by not having any friends. Either online or in real life.
I really don't want to be judged by the company I keep on Slashdot. People's tastes around here are just bizarre. Natalie Portman? Covered in grits? Petrified? Let alone the obsession with wanting to Beowulf everything.
Yes, put them in jail. But only because they released classified information. And if it's good enough for Bradley Manning to be locked up and tortured, then it is good enough for these people. Oh wait, these people didn't release political damaging and embarrassing information that demonstrated illegal activities by the US military.
I'm not even convinced that Bradley Manning even did anything. He's alleged to have done something, and he's been charged with various "crimes", but innocent until proven guilt amirite? And even if "proven" guilty (or if he admits guilt) I wouldn't be too sure, as he's been tortured (solitary confinement for hundreds of days) and denied access to a speedy trial, I'm sure there are heaps of other irregularities with regards his case.
If it works, don't upgrade now. When the hardware fails, or you want to upgrade the system, or vitalize it, go with the Free, modern and supported DOS.