We don't let children vote. What a horrifying thought! Mickey Mouse would be telling kids to support billion-year copyright extensions.
We do let people vote at age 18. An 18-year-old is unlikely to have been supporting himself for long, to have effective memories of both recessions and booms, to have a decent understanding of world politics, and so on. Most 18 year olds are still strongly influenced by the various fads and peer pressures of youth, typically as encouraged by the usual large corporations. (the pop star says we should vote for...)
So really, low turnout of inexperienced people is not bad. We don't need any more people voting for the guy with the attractive haircut.
WTF do you think we pay the FBI to do? Sit on their asses?
Maybe you think we should disband the FBI? Maybe the state police, county sherifs, and city cops too?
Sorry, anarchy doesn't work so well. Anarchy is a vaccuum that will get filled by something, and that "something" might be a whole lot less to your liking.
The first example doesn't really apply. C has other advantages. Also, the CPU itself is a very special case. It's not a perhiperal.
ACPI hasn't replaced existing standards, but Intel is using ACPI for most new stuff. We've enjoyed those nice hardware standards. We won't be getting many more. It'll be ACPI function calls.
The configuration part of the spec is not needed. For over a decade, we've been able to handle PCI devices without needing a complicated script interpreter. Even BIOS calls, done at boot, were less bad than ACPI.
OLPC is not using ACPI. That's why OLPC can afford to have detailed power management; the OS knows everything. That _CST crap might get one out of needing AML in the most critical sections sometimes, but then you'll be trapping into SMM (System Management Mode) via an SMI (System Management Interrupt) triggered on the register write. That's no good at all.
The boot loader issue is a separate problem. Microsoft does actually do ACPI crap in their boot loader, at least on Vista. It is absurd that an OS should be running a complicated interpreter just to boot. BTW, this puts OS development out of reach for nearly all computer science students, which is a terrible shame.
We used to standardize hardware interfaces. They stood the test of time, were well supported, and were low overhead. Writing drivers, including boot code, was no serious problem. We didn't need an emulator, virtual machine, etc.
Decent standards: IDE, VGA, PC serial interface, PC parallel interface, PC keyboard interface, UHCI, OHCI, etc.
Now we standardize an interface to non-standard hardware via ACPI. The OS is supposed to run ACPI code (a script) in a complicated interpreter. ACPI code is slow and buggy, and generally gets to do whatever it wants with the hardware. It's like making BIOS calls to do everything, but without even the minor advantage of native code.
This is especially painful for boot loaders. You can't run an ACPI interpreter in a 512-byte boot sector. You probably can't do it in any reasonable boot loader.
This is even painful for power management. For example, OLPC wants to suspend the CPU between every keystroke; that doesn't work so well if you need to run an ACPI code script to do it.
1024x768 was never the default for Linux. The default has always been to use the highest resolution possible. Often this has even meant a 256-color mode with a low refresh rate and blurry little text.
1024x768 does in fact sound like the default for Windows, at least as chosen by the PC vendors. For many years it was 640x480. Then they went up a bit, I think first to 800x600 and now to 1024x768. Older people want big text, and lots of Windows apps break if the font sizes change, so the PC vendors use a low resolution.
Out of your list, the 8-bit channels are the only problem for me.
I hope they never add CMYK crap to the core. Native Y,Cb,Cr would be kind of useful though, to avoid round-off errors when editing JPEG images.
Gamma probably the worst problem. It might actually be what you see as antialiasing quality problems; that can be a symptom of treating non-linear data as if it were linear. Nearly all of the gimp does operations on non-linear datathat are only meaningful on linear data. The result is image degradation. Besides generally making colors wrong, image noise can stand out more and antialiased edges can become darker.
Because involvement in human-subjects research is voluntary, there will always be a self-selection bias. Hmmm. How about making it non-voluntary?
First, pick a random person. I suggest paying somebody with access to a government database. This will ensure that you don't miss babies, incarcerated people, people without phone numbers, etc.
Second, go get them. You could have a couple of your larger graduate students just shove the human subject into a van and hold them down. Another option is to threaten the subject with a shotgun.
Third, sit the subject down in front of the gimp and make them do stuff. Getting people to actually use the gimp will often require the shotgun. Observe any discomfort, panic, frustration, or anger that the subjects experience while using the gimp.
You do however need virtual desktops to keep your sanity. Linux obviously supports this very well.
MacOS Tiger has virtual desktops. Perhaps you'd like to use that?
Numerous add-ons for Windows are available. Wikipedia has a list of a few dozen implementations. (see the "virtual desktop" entry and stuff linked from there) It seems that people are dying for virtual desktops on Windows, but Microsoft doesn't give a shit. Have you thought about getting a Mac?
I ought to be able to close the toolbox. Sometimes I don't even need it. I do always need an image window though; keeping the gimp open without one is only useful to avoid the agonizingly slow start-up if I want to work on another project.
Note that 99% is absurdly optimistic if it only includes condom failure. I chose that number on purpose, being generous and simplifying things.
If you want to argue over details like chance of infection with unprotected sex, then I'll take back my 99%. Real world condom success, including the problem of many people who mess up, is far lower. (be careful: many condom-related numbers wrongly exclude incorrect usage)
Clone the ones that taste best. This is East Asia you know, and there's nothing wrong with that from a logical point of view. Pigs are smarter than dogs anyway, and we eat those, so it's not as if intelligence would be an issue.
I'll have a Pekingese please, baked with some rosemary. Yummy!
I'm just being generous with the 99%. Mostly I've heard 80% to 90%, sometimes 70% or worse.
The numbers vary because not everybody uses condoms correctly every time. People are quite bad about it actually. When counting failures, do you count only the cases where the condom was properly used or do you also count the times it failed because the user was a horny idiot fumbling around in the dark?
Nearly all of us think that we are not that idiot, just like nearly all of us think that we are good drivers. We can't all be right; somebody has to be the idiot.
Expecting people to CORRECTLY use a condom, knowing that many will screw up horribly, just adds to the evil of suggesting that condoms provide effective protection.
This really isn't much of a gain. If the info theory is right, there isn't much gain to be had. Even in the most optimistic case, we aren't going to go much beyond a factor of two additional reduction.
Other stuff is more interesting: fast decompression time, fast compression time, smaller compression block size
The fundamental human right to have and express an opinion is rather endangered these days.
Europe lost it a long time ago. Merely expressing the opinion that the Holocoust didn't happen will put you in jail in many European countries. France is not a free country. Germany is not a free country. I think Austria and Belgium are on that list too, among others.
In the USA, you can still express irrational hatred, but this causes you to be unfairly punished for minor crimes. For example, suppose you hate black people and let everybody know it. Suppose you are also a common crook or mildly violent. Suppose you beat somebody up. If you beat up a white person, it's a minor offense. If you happen to beat up a black person, it's a major felony -- even if you just did it to get his wallet or because he insulted your girlfriend.
It's not exactly "each male child has a higher chance of being gay than the previous one".
It's consecutive male children. Granted, a woman with only 2 kids can't have 3 males in a row, but there isn't much difference between 7 kids and 12 kids.
Either way, this suggests that homosexuality is NOT genetic. Since the research used adoption cases to rule out the family situation, the womb environment is suspected, particularly the mother's immune system. In other words, it's a birth defect. (there is no rule that says birth defects must be visible physical deformities -- they can be behavioral abnormalities too)
It is not sane to trust a flimsy latex membrane to save you from horrible diseases that can kill you.
It is not moral or ethical to suggest that somebody trust their life to a condom.
Sure, it may work most of the time, but "most" is nowhere near good enough. You can accept "most" when the consequence is something like losing $1000, losing your job, a broken arm, a dead pet, etc. It's not good enough for human death.
What makes the suggestion really evil is that most people don't understand probability, let alone any serious statistics. Suppose you do everything right, and get 99% protection -- a generous estimate indeed. Suppose you have sex once a week, year after year. Do you know how to calculate the chance of infection after a decade of that behavior? I do. You have a 99.46% chance of getting the disease!!!
Slashdot Mirror
We don't let children vote. What a horrifying thought! Mickey Mouse would be telling kids to support billion-year copyright extensions.
We do let people vote at age 18. An 18-year-old is unlikely to have been supporting himself for long, to have effective memories of both recessions and booms, to have a decent understanding of world politics, and so on. Most 18 year olds are still strongly influenced by the various fads and peer pressures of youth, typically as encouraged by the usual large corporations. (the pop star says we should vote for...)
So really, low turnout of inexperienced people is not bad. We don't need any more people voting for the guy with the attractive haircut.
The browser plug-in is based on gcc.
Could somebody buy out valgrind, firefox, apache, etc.?
How is our situation with OpenOffice?
What about the FSF itself? Could RMS get voted out? What if he dies?
Any other projects using copyright assignment?
For example, donate some GPLv3 code. :-)
This is the FBI, not the NSA or CIA.
WTF do you think we pay the FBI to do? Sit on their asses?
Maybe you think we should disband the FBI? Maybe the state police, county sherifs, and city cops too?
Sorry, anarchy doesn't work so well. Anarchy is a vaccuum that will get filled by something, and that "something" might be a whole lot less to your liking.
The first example doesn't really apply. C has other advantages. Also, the CPU itself is a very special case. It's not a perhiperal.
ACPI hasn't replaced existing standards, but Intel is using ACPI for most new stuff. We've enjoyed those nice hardware standards. We won't be getting many more. It'll be ACPI function calls.
The configuration part of the spec is not needed. For over a decade, we've been able to handle PCI devices without needing a complicated script interpreter. Even BIOS calls, done at boot, were less bad than ACPI.
OLPC is not using ACPI. That's why OLPC can afford to have detailed power management; the OS knows everything. That _CST crap might get one out of needing AML in the most critical sections sometimes, but then you'll be trapping into SMM (System Management Mode) via an SMI (System Management Interrupt) triggered on the register write. That's no good at all.
The boot loader issue is a separate problem. Microsoft does actually do ACPI crap in their boot loader, at least on Vista. It is absurd that an OS should be running a complicated interpreter just to boot. BTW, this puts OS development out of reach for nearly all computer science students, which is a terrible shame.
We used to standardize hardware interfaces. They stood the test of time, were well supported, and were low overhead. Writing drivers, including boot code, was no serious problem. We didn't need an emulator, virtual machine, etc.
Decent standards: IDE, VGA, PC serial interface, PC parallel interface, PC keyboard interface, UHCI, OHCI, etc.
Now we standardize an interface to non-standard hardware via ACPI. The OS is supposed to run ACPI code (a script) in a complicated interpreter. ACPI code is slow and buggy, and generally gets to do whatever it wants with the hardware. It's like making BIOS calls to do everything, but without even the minor advantage of native code.
This is especially painful for boot loaders. You can't run an ACPI interpreter in a 512-byte boot sector. You probably can't do it in any reasonable boot loader.
This is even painful for power management. For example, OLPC wants to suspend the CPU between every keystroke; that doesn't work so well if you need to run an ACPI code script to do it.
1024x768 was never the default for Linux. The default has always been to use the highest resolution possible. Often this has even meant a 256-color mode with a low refresh rate and blurry little text.
1024x768 does in fact sound like the default for Windows, at least as chosen by the PC vendors. For many years it was 640x480. Then they went up a bit, I think first to 800x600 and now to 1024x768. Older people want big text, and lots of Windows apps break if the font sizes change, so the PC vendors use a low resolution.
How can you not like a program named after a midget or dwarf used as a submissive for gay sex?
That's an entirely appropriate way to name a graphics program.
Out of your list, the 8-bit channels are the only problem for me.
I hope they never add CMYK crap to the core. Native Y,Cb,Cr would be kind of useful though, to avoid round-off errors when editing JPEG images.
Gamma probably the worst problem. It might actually be what you see as antialiasing quality problems; that can be a symptom of treating non-linear data as if it were linear. Nearly all of the gimp does operations on non-linear datathat are only meaningful on linear data. The result is image degradation. Besides generally making colors wrong, image noise can stand out more and antialiased edges can become darker.
First, pick a random person. I suggest paying somebody with access to a government database. This will ensure that you don't miss babies, incarcerated people, people without phone numbers, etc.
Second, go get them. You could have a couple of your larger graduate students just shove the human subject into a van and hold them down. Another option is to threaten the subject with a shotgun.
Third, sit the subject down in front of the gimp and make them do stuff. Getting people to actually use the gimp will often require the shotgun. Observe any discomfort, panic, frustration, or anger that the subjects experience while using the gimp.
You do however need virtual desktops to keep your sanity. Linux obviously supports this very well.
MacOS Tiger has virtual desktops. Perhaps you'd like to use that?
Numerous add-ons for Windows are available. Wikipedia has a list of a few dozen implementations. (see the "virtual desktop" entry and stuff linked from there) It seems that people are dying for virtual desktops on Windows, but Microsoft doesn't give a shit. Have you thought about getting a Mac?
Now that you put it that way...
I ought to be able to close the toolbox. Sometimes I don't even need it. I do always need an image window though; keeping the gimp open without one is only useful to avoid the agonizingly slow start-up if I want to work on another project.
Note that 99% is absurdly optimistic if it only includes condom failure. I chose that number on purpose, being generous and simplifying things.
If you want to argue over details like chance of infection with unprotected sex, then I'll take back my 99%. Real world condom success, including the problem of many people who mess up, is far lower. (be careful: many condom-related numbers wrongly exclude incorrect usage)
Shall we go with 70% instead?
Clone the ones that taste best. This is East Asia you know, and there's nothing wrong with that from a logical point of view. Pigs are smarter than dogs anyway, and we eat those, so it's not as if intelligence would be an issue.
I'll have a Pekingese please, baked with some rosemary. Yummy!
At best, nobody gives a damn.
Businesses actively work to prevent other sites from scraping content. They certainly aren't going to spend extra effort to support it!
Users care about presentation. Looks are everything. Web developers know this, or at least the marketing people in charge of web design know it.
I'm just being generous with the 99%. Mostly I've heard 80% to 90%, sometimes 70% or worse.
The numbers vary because not everybody uses condoms correctly every time. People are quite bad about it actually. When counting failures, do you count only the cases where the condom was properly used or do you also count the times it failed because the user was a horny idiot fumbling around in the dark?
Nearly all of us think that we are not that idiot, just like nearly all of us think that we are good drivers. We can't all be right; somebody has to be the idiot.
Expecting people to CORRECTLY use a condom, knowing that many will screw up horribly, just adds to the evil of suggesting that condoms provide effective protection.
This really isn't much of a gain. If the info theory is right, there isn't much gain to be had. Even in the most optimistic case, we aren't going to go much beyond a factor of two additional reduction.
Other stuff is more interesting: fast decompression time, fast compression time, smaller compression block size
Suppose the seat is mostly down, floating just a few inches above the rim.
You get into the general position, but not yet seated.
You grab the handles, straps, bars, or other S+M devices.
You pull yourself downward and backward. (ass direction or Earth-like coordinates)
Before your ass pushes the seat down flat, your balls get between the seat and the rim.
CRUNCH!
This toilet recycles.
American: "This Tang tastes like shit."
Russian: "It is shit."
American: "Kind of nutty, eh?"
1. roll back foreskin, if any
2. spread pee hole to prevent central self-adhesion
3. let go of the pee hole
4. pee
The fundamental human right to have and express an opinion is rather endangered these days.
Europe lost it a long time ago. Merely expressing the opinion that the Holocoust didn't happen will put you in jail in many European countries. France is not a free country. Germany is not a free country. I think Austria and Belgium are on that list too, among others.
In the USA, you can still express irrational hatred, but this causes you to be unfairly punished for minor crimes. For example, suppose you hate black people and let everybody know it. Suppose you are also a common crook or mildly violent. Suppose you beat somebody up. If you beat up a white person, it's a minor offense. If you happen to beat up a black person, it's a major felony -- even if you just did it to get his wallet or because he insulted your girlfriend.
It's not exactly "each male child has a higher chance of being gay than the previous one".
It's consecutive male children. Granted, a woman with only 2 kids can't have 3 males in a row, but there isn't much difference between 7 kids and 12 kids.
Either way, this suggests that homosexuality is NOT genetic. Since the research used adoption cases to rule out the family situation, the womb environment is suspected, particularly the mother's immune system. In other words, it's a birth defect. (there is no rule that says birth defects must be visible physical deformities -- they can be behavioral abnormalities too)
Guys there believe that sex with a virgin will suck the HIV out of their bodies. Very young girls, even babies, are frequently raped for this reason.
It is not sane to trust a flimsy latex membrane to save you from horrible diseases that can kill you.
It is not moral or ethical to suggest that somebody trust their life to a condom.
Sure, it may work most of the time, but "most" is nowhere near good enough. You can accept "most" when the consequence is something like losing $1000, losing your job, a broken arm, a dead pet, etc. It's not good enough for human death.
What makes the suggestion really evil is that most people don't understand probability, let alone any serious statistics. Suppose you do everything right, and get 99% protection -- a generous estimate indeed. Suppose you have sex once a week, year after year. Do you know how to calculate the chance of infection after a decade of that behavior? I do. You have a 99.46% chance of getting the disease!!!
Let me repeat: 99.46%
That's a death sentence.