No, it wasn't trench warfare, unless sitting in a trench on the bottom of the ocean counts. Being sent off to die was part of the deal, and I'm one of those odd balls that thinks my country and family are worth defending. As far as survival goes, if you use WWI or WWII numbers for submariners, it was not pretty.
I have no idea what your point was other than to spam up that link on trench warfare.
Economics assumes resources are finite and value can be infinite. Growth in economics is based on value (which is determined by supply and demand), not resources.
but I think the point is that for all but the top 1% survival has been a brutal and unpleasant ordeal. This assumes there is a universal definition of what pleasant life is.
We sent Physicists off to die too. LOL. I was a nuclear reactor operator in the US Navy.
It requires some serious magical thinking to believe that not only will we reach that target, but that we'll be able to keep making them even smaller than that!
This also assumes we keep using transistors. There were limits to what could be done with vacuum tubes prior to the invention of the transistor.
The world's financial systems are built on that assumption i.e. anyone who lends money expects to make a profit on the loan, after inflation if applicable. That's true of all loans, from the smallest micro-loan to the trillions in sovereign debt owed by the USA.
There is no guarantee of return on all but insured investments. People learn this lesson and often the hard way.
Why do so many people in finance continue to insist on growth?
Because growth does not mean what you think it does. Value is not finite. As supply decreases value increases, as demand increases value increases. Yes, there are limits to resources, but the resources have no limit in their value (as you can see from the price of gold).
Now extrapolate 50 years ahead. All of a sudden, those remarkable, delicate and doomed circumstances that make your life so pleasant right now - DON'T EXIST (food, clean air, water, infrastructure, toys, relative afflluence, relative safety).
This thinking is a great plot device for movies, but historically speaking, mankind has survived quite a bit.
It didn't have to be this way but a lot of very poor choices were made (and continue to be made).
Those bad decisions do not need to continue to be made, and there is no guarantee that non-western world leaders will not make the same or worse mistakes in the future.
But giving your stuff away doesn't make you money.
It can, but only if you plan for it. First, you have to have a second sale plan is. Second, you have to build a mechanism to make the second sale happen. For example, you could release a new version with more features people want and charge for the upgrade. You could use a bult in messaging feature to tell your customers about the upgrade or even another app in the future. Software makers have a deep history of finding ways to give it away for free, and then finding the second sale (see the old shareware model for a very simplistic model). It's how Rovio sells Angry Birds Summer Picnic and Angry Birds Rio to Angry Birds users.
Why pay anything? This is really an interesting question. It comes down to this: making software that is so useful that people are willing to pay isn't easy. It's also not easy to establish value if people don't know your app exists. Here's a complaint I have about Amazon's market: very few of the apps I've been offered for free are worth paying for (Turbo Granny, I'm looking at you). Some I will pay for when the dev offers an upgrade (Legerist I'm looking at you). Some of the problem is that creators of anything are not able to see their baby is ugly, so they incorrectly think it has value to everyone.
However having free stuff does net Amazon a lot of exposure and incentive for new customers. It certainly does give people a reason to use their App store today, but does not guarantee that people will move to the Google-free Android in the future. Incidentally, the idea of building a market for a non Google Android by giving apps away is a second sale strategy. Getting people to move to Amazon's future OS will be decided by the product and how Amazon markets it. Right now, the Amazon market does nothing to make me want a Kindle device, but it does give me an alternative store to shop for Android apps.
OK, you got a glass of unsweetened lemon juice. Here is how you put some sugar and water in to make it taste better:
Time to come out with a pay-only upgrade. You have 100,000 users. If you charge just $1, you have a chunk coming your way, depending on how many upgrade.
Done in one.
Oh, and this is why apps should always have a way for the developer to message the user with a link. This way if you get sick of the market that distributes your app, you can tell you users to "Get super awesome app 2 here (links to app store that isn't the one you are mad at)."
Finally, you can use the same in app message feature to tell your users about your other apps.
Or you can go sulk about your 100,000 user new customer base. It's up to you.
The purpose of desktops is to facilitate doing stuff and to do so in the most intuitive, minimal, forgiving, task centric way possible.
Those are certainly your rules. They won't ever work because they are a hairball of conflict (more on that in a second). My desktop is for getting work done as quickly as possible.
In short, the rules you have are silly, and will not work well, but they probably sound good at the coffee shop or when you are in a room full of people wearing black turtlenecks:
being task centric can be in conflict with doing stuff (what if I need to interrupt my task... modial dialog madness anyone?)
being intuitive may not be task centric (computers are multitasking. When you focus on one task, multitasking becomes less than intuitive)
task centric man not be minimal (complex tasks sometimes require complex tools. Simplicity is nice, but sometimes you need Blender)
minimal may be in conflict with intuitive (where do I change settings? settings are deprecated)
being minimal may preclude being forgiving (how do I make it so I can do this? that options does not exist.)
Aren't "Anti Global Warming opponents" the same as "Global Warming Supporters"?
They (financial community) are simply dishonest, they've fucked up, and they want to blame others for their problems - and they're certainly making 99% of the rest of the world suffer for their crimes. The same financial community will be raking it in on trading carbon credits. Look at any commodity trading - who always wins? The losers will be working people, and the poor as it ads a whole layer of cost that is paid by the consumer.
clueless politically motivated people like politicians shout the loudest and so get listened to more than the scientists and people who actually know what they are talking about.
The CRU should have never, ever given them an excuse to start yelling. The existence of the emails and the "it's not big deal" response combined with excuses for incomplete data disclosure were a sequence of PR mistakes.
No, the actual issue was that a group of people with ulterior motives spotted a chink in the armor of legitimate scientists and they exploited it to reaffirm for some collection of the masses that climate scientists are untrustworthy.
Actually, that's not too far off from the CRU's point of view. The moral of the story is do not have chinks in your armor. If you do, get them fixed before someone rams a spear into your side.
WTF? You cannot get a more configurable, snappy, flexible and powerful file manager than Dolphin. None exist. Konqueror and Krusader would like a word with you.:)
1. Desktop Icons. Right click on desktop, select Desktop Settings. Change to "Folder View" and set place to "Desktop". Done. If there is no Folder View, then you are either are using KDE 4.0 or have botched your install of KDE.
2. File Manager Speed I'm not sure what the complaint is about 1 second open to window time for a modern file manager.
2a. File Manager Configuration I agree with you that Dolphin's control panel isn't the best. It's too dumbed down. There are two other KDE file managers: Konqueror (Explorer style) and Krusader (Norton Commander style), both of which are more configurable than is Dolphin. Try them and use the one you like.
3. Widgets in panels. Works fine for me, but it would be nice to have a little bit of snap to position.
On your conclusion, I have to just kind of sigh and roll my eyes. Your experience is indicative of someone with little experience in that you were unable to recognize a GPU driver issue.
It produces a desktop which is intimidating and inaccessible to new users
I don't think there are that many new computer users out there. Maybe it's time to change the assumption that everyone wants or needs welded on training wheels.
Unfortunately, most climate skeptics tend to hold the dogma that there is no climate change.
Taking it on trust is the definition of faith. Without data and full disclosure of source code for computer models, there is nothing to believe in other than, "trust us". Even if that trust is in "experts in the field" is is still faith. Faith is not science.
My hope is that the data release will quell the questions that Climategate raised.
I don't see the public clamoring for this data so they can check it with their own models at home.
That was never the issue with climategate. The issue was that disclosed emails brought into question the motives of the leadership of the CRU who expressed an ends justifies the means philosophy. The CRUs opponents demanded to look at the data. When the CRU would not release data, that gave the anit-global warming movement PR ammunition leading to much of the public deciding that the CRU (and other climate researchers) were not to be trusted. As usual, the coverup is worse than the crime, and in this case the CRU's behavior set back public perception 5-10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Wealth and resources are not the same thing.
No, it wasn't trench warfare, unless sitting in a trench on the bottom of the ocean counts. Being sent off to die was part of the deal, and I'm one of those odd balls that thinks my country and family are worth defending. As far as survival goes, if you use WWI or WWII numbers for submariners, it was not pretty.
I have no idea what your point was other than to spam up that link on trench warfare.
Economics assumes resources are finite and value can be infinite. Growth in economics is based on value (which is determined by supply and demand), not resources.
I'll bet on nature over central planning any day.
but I think the point is that for all but the top 1% survival has been a brutal and unpleasant ordeal.
This assumes there is a universal definition of what pleasant life is.
We sent Physicists off to die too.
LOL. I was a nuclear reactor operator in the US Navy.
Artificial sweetener is like masturbation.
The yeast in the bottle of grape juice said the same thing too.
They don't think. I'm pretty sure of that.
It requires some serious magical thinking to believe that not only will we reach that target, but that we'll be able to keep making them even smaller than that!
This also assumes we keep using transistors. There were limits to what could be done with vacuum tubes prior to the invention of the transistor.
The world's financial systems are built on that assumption i.e. anyone who lends money expects to make a profit on the loan, after inflation if applicable. That's true of all loans, from the smallest micro-loan to the trillions in sovereign debt owed by the USA.
There is no guarantee of return on all but insured investments. People learn this lesson and often the hard way.
Why do so many people in finance continue to insist on growth?
Because growth does not mean what you think it does. Value is not finite. As supply decreases value increases, as demand increases value increases. Yes, there are limits to resources, but the resources have no limit in their value (as you can see from the price of gold).
Now extrapolate 50 years ahead. All of a sudden, those remarkable, delicate and doomed circumstances that make your life so pleasant right now - DON'T EXIST (food, clean air, water, infrastructure, toys, relative afflluence, relative safety).
This thinking is a great plot device for movies, but historically speaking, mankind has survived quite a bit.
It didn't have to be this way but a lot of very poor choices were made (and continue to be made).
Those bad decisions do not need to continue to be made, and there is no guarantee that non-western world leaders will not make the same or worse mistakes in the future.
But giving your stuff away doesn't make you money.
It can, but only if you plan for it. First, you have to have a second sale plan is. Second, you have to build a mechanism to make the second sale happen. For example, you could release a new version with more features people want and charge for the upgrade. You could use a bult in messaging feature to tell your customers about the upgrade or even another app in the future. Software makers have a deep history of finding ways to give it away for free, and then finding the second sale (see the old shareware model for a very simplistic model). It's how Rovio sells Angry Birds Summer Picnic and Angry Birds Rio to Angry Birds users.
Why pay anything?
This is really an interesting question. It comes down to this: making software that is so useful that people are willing to pay isn't easy. It's also not easy to establish value if people don't know your app exists. Here's a complaint I have about Amazon's market: very few of the apps I've been offered for free are worth paying for (Turbo Granny, I'm looking at you). Some I will pay for when the dev offers an upgrade (Legerist I'm looking at you). Some of the problem is that creators of anything are not able to see their baby is ugly, so they incorrectly think it has value to everyone.
However having free stuff does net Amazon a lot of exposure and incentive for new customers.
It certainly does give people a reason to use their App store today, but does not guarantee that people will move to the Google-free Android in the future. Incidentally, the idea of building a market for a non Google Android by giving apps away is a second sale strategy. Getting people to move to Amazon's future OS will be decided by the product and how Amazon markets it. Right now, the Amazon market does nothing to make me want a Kindle device, but it does give me an alternative store to shop for Android apps.
OK, you got a glass of unsweetened lemon juice. Here is how you put some sugar and water in to make it taste better:
Time to come out with a pay-only upgrade. You have 100,000 users. If you charge just $1, you have a chunk coming your way, depending on how many upgrade.
Done in one.
Oh, and this is why apps should always have a way for the developer to message the user with a link. This way if you get sick of the market that distributes your app, you can tell you users to "Get super awesome app 2 here (links to app store that isn't the one you are mad at)."
Finally, you can use the same in app message feature to tell your users about your other apps.
Or you can go sulk about your 100,000 user new customer base. It's up to you.
No one who has predicted the end of the world has been right, to date.
Please. The US may be becoming a police state, but everywhere you are encouraging us to run is ALREADY a police state.
The purpose of desktops is to facilitate doing stuff and to do so in the most intuitive, minimal, forgiving, task centric way possible.
Those are certainly your rules. They won't ever work because they are a hairball of conflict (more on that in a second). My desktop is for getting work done as quickly as possible.
In short, the rules you have are silly, and will not work well, but they probably sound good at the coffee shop or when you are in a room full of people wearing black turtlenecks:
being task centric can be in conflict with doing stuff
(what if I need to interrupt my task... modial dialog madness anyone?)
being intuitive may not be task centric
(computers are multitasking. When you focus on one task, multitasking becomes less than intuitive)
task centric man not be minimal
(complex tasks sometimes require complex tools. Simplicity is nice, but sometimes you need Blender)
minimal may be in conflict with intuitive
(where do I change settings? settings are deprecated)
being minimal may preclude being forgiving
(how do I make it so I can do this? that options does not exist.)
AGW opponents were looking for a reason.
Aren't "Anti Global Warming opponents" the same as "Global Warming Supporters"?
They (financial community) are simply dishonest, they've fucked up, and they want to blame others for their problems - and they're certainly making 99% of the rest of the world suffer for their crimes.
The same financial community will be raking it in on trading carbon credits. Look at any commodity trading - who always wins? The losers will be working people, and the poor as it ads a whole layer of cost that is paid by the consumer.
clueless politically motivated people like politicians shout the loudest and so get listened to more than the scientists and people who actually know what they are talking about.
The CRU should have never, ever given them an excuse to start yelling. The existence of the emails and the "it's not big deal" response combined with excuses for incomplete data disclosure were a sequence of PR mistakes.
No, the actual issue was that a group of people with ulterior motives spotted a chink in the armor of legitimate scientists and they exploited it to reaffirm for some collection of the masses that climate scientists are untrustworthy.
Actually, that's not too far off from the CRU's point of view. The moral of the story is do not have chinks in your armor. If you do, get them fixed before someone rams a spear into your side.
WTF? You cannot get a more configurable, snappy, flexible and powerful file manager than Dolphin. None exist. :)
Konqueror and Krusader would like a word with you.
Hmm.
1. Desktop Icons.
Right click on desktop, select Desktop Settings. Change to "Folder View" and set place to "Desktop". Done. If there is no Folder View, then you are either are using KDE 4.0 or have botched your install of KDE.
2. File Manager Speed
I'm not sure what the complaint is about 1 second open to window time for a modern file manager.
2a. File Manager Configuration
I agree with you that Dolphin's control panel isn't the best. It's too dumbed down. There are two other KDE file managers: Konqueror (Explorer style) and Krusader (Norton Commander style), both of which are more configurable than is Dolphin. Try them and use the one you like.
3. Widgets in panels.
Works fine for me, but it would be nice to have a little bit of snap to position.
On your conclusion, I have to just kind of sigh and roll my eyes. Your experience is indicative of someone with little experience in that you were unable to recognize a GPU driver issue.
It produces a desktop which is intimidating and inaccessible to new users
I don't think there are that many new computer users out there. Maybe it's time to change the assumption that everyone wants or needs welded on training wheels.
I already have and have no interest in doing your homework for you.
Unfortunately, most climate skeptics tend to hold the dogma that there is no climate change.
Taking it on trust is the definition of faith. Without data and full disclosure of source code for computer models, there is nothing to believe in other than, "trust us". Even if that trust is in "experts in the field" is is still faith. Faith is not science.
My hope is that the data release will quell the questions that Climategate raised.
I don't see the public clamoring for this data so they can check it with their own models at home.
That was never the issue with climategate. The issue was that disclosed emails brought into question the motives of the leadership of the CRU who expressed an ends justifies the means philosophy. The CRUs opponents demanded to look at the data. When the CRU would not release data, that gave the anit-global warming movement PR ammunition leading to much of the public deciding that the CRU (and other climate researchers) were not to be trusted. As usual, the coverup is worse than the crime, and in this case the CRU's behavior set back public perception 5-10 years.