I installed openoffice on a secretary's desktop machine. She came back a few hours saying it was nice but she wanted MS Office because "openoffice didn't do headers and footers". I just sighed and didn't persue it.
It does to the limitations of the taskbar. For example if you chose OSX like it does indeed give you the icons that grow when you hover over them. I don't really see the point in mimiking exactly though.
We already do that. When you run KDE for the first time it runs a program (kpersonalizer) that asks if you want it to look like windows, mac osx, kde-own, motif or something, and so on. That then sets the defaults for everything (style, single/double click mode etc) and lets you modify it if you want.
KDE4 will help a lot with this. We will use gstreamer (sorta - the user/distro can change it, but it's fairly safe to just say "kde will use gstreamer" even if not technically correct). Artsd will be dropped.
The GetHotNewStuff codec idea is good, but I'm not sure we want to touch that from a legal point of view:/
KDE 4 will greatly simplify this. Basically we will drop artsd (which nobody ever liked) and instead have a simple API that apps will use. The API will use gstreamer underneath (you can change this if you want). Apps which require more complex use from a multimedia engine will have to support gstreamer directly.
What?? I've read his freshmen lectures, and they are written fantastically simplistically. His passion was to reach for the freshmen and for the top few percent.
If you cannot understand his freshmen lectures, then there is something quite seriously wrong with you and have no place in a degree.
i really hate people like you. You read one slashdot generalised article summary, and suddenly you are questioning the science of a plan put together by some of the smartest physicists. Isn't it more likely that you just don't understand the whole plan yet, and that if you spent a few weeks going over it all carefully, you might have a better idea for it. Either that, or just shut the fuck up.
I'm looking forward to civ4 immensely, but I'm worried about the screenshots that are comming out. They look very nice, but very much zoomed in. It looks like it might do the same jump that Command and conqueror did with its command and conquer generals - i.e. concentrate on graphics and make the game play, well, rubbish. I pray Civ4 will be just as good as the other civs:)
This is exactly what he mean when he wrote: "65GPa is only the "expected required strength" if you want to have a 12fold or higher taper factor. If you want that, you can't claim that it'll cost as much as a shuttle replacement (already a bogus claim, though, with even Edwards numbers estimating 40B$). You're looking at costs measured in the hundreds of billions or trillions at that weak of a strength, for a small elevator."
The '12fold taper factor' is basically your pyramid. Well actually it's an upside down pyramid, but close enough:)
I agree with you. I was just immediately jumping to science's defence because I initially read it as "scientists are stupid because they didn't get the right answer immediately".
You bring up an interesting point about Occam's Razor - one I hadn't thought of before. It's not easy being a good scientist, and we/they do make mistakes, but you just gotta do the best you can:)
Which is a shame, because I really liked the ideas behind it. Every email is a document in a heirachal database. You could then setup rules so that information from it was automatically put into another database, or setup workflow rules so that you could specify a document has to be signed off by legal, HR etc first, and so on. And because its a database, it was trivial to build a web interface to the email, with all the authentication done automatically, and so on.
The theory of gravity isn't proven at all. You can't prove anything, you can only disprove.
The "intelligent falling" theory is a logically valid theory, and holds up against the evidence. It might be "God" that pushes things down when you let go of them. We cannot prove that if you personally jumped off that cliff, on that particular day and time, that you would fall. All we can do is generalise from past experiments.
I know that the definition of a species is that they no longer interbreed, and understand your post.
But that they might not have become two seperate species, and still might have been able to interbreed when one is more evolved that the other or what-have-you, is still an obvious idea.
I think you overstate the whole "scientists are waking up to the idea" etc. I bet if you went back 40 years and asked them they would have given all the possibilities we've discussed. It's just that you have to go with the simplist model until you have evidence that can no longer fit it. It's how science 'evolves'.
I had a choice between replying or modding you offtopic because I hate people that try to use reverse pyschology.
Anyway, I don't understand what you are saying at all. At some point some creature forked into two species. One went on to be human, and the other probably carried on evolving for a bit more before dying out for some reason. This seems obvious, and what I would have expected. What am I misunderstanding here?
In the UK we are taught how to prove every algorithm we use. I've heard that in the US this isn't the case. As a result, the US students know a lot more algorithms, but don't know how to prove them until they do a math degree.
With wikipedia, I like to read the Talk page and see if people are disagreeing with the content. On slashdot I read the comments to see if people disagree with the content, and so on.
With a printed encyclopedia I have no chance of being able to do that. That's kinda closed and opaque.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Where did it fail? Mathematics can't be completely based on theory and logic??
I installed openoffice on a secretary's desktop machine. She came back a few hours saying it was nice but she wanted MS Office because "openoffice didn't do headers and footers". I just sighed and didn't persue it.
It does to the limitations of the taskbar. For example if you chose OSX like it does indeed give you the icons that grow when you hover over them. I don't really see the point in mimiking exactly though.
We already do that. When you run KDE for the first time it runs a program (kpersonalizer) that asks if you want it to look like windows, mac osx, kde-own, motif or something, and so on. That then sets the defaults for everything (style, single/double click mode etc) and lets you modify it if you want.
Run kpersonalizer manually again if you want.
You were right up to the point about paying for it. You can't pay and legally be able to use all those codecs in linux.
KDE4 will help a lot with this. We will use gstreamer (sorta - the user/distro can change it, but it's fairly safe to just say "kde will use gstreamer" even if not technically correct).
:/
Artsd will be dropped.
The GetHotNewStuff codec idea is good, but I'm not sure we want to touch that from a legal point of view
This will be fixed in KDE4. We will dump artsd and use gstreamer + dmix. (probably - the user/distro can change that).
KDE 4 will greatly simplify this. Basically we will drop artsd (which nobody ever liked) and instead have a simple API that apps will use. The API will use gstreamer underneath (you can change this if you want).
Apps which require more complex use from a multimedia engine will have to support gstreamer directly.
And working with different languages of windows. ;(
Yeah, with all that difficulty, it's amazing that all the main free open source programs manage to run across all distros, but you can't manage it.
No you can't (realistically) scroll text. it takes a whole second to draw the draw the screen. ;)
What?? I've read his freshmen lectures, and they are written fantastically simplistically. His passion was to reach for the freshmen and for the top few percent.
If you cannot understand his freshmen lectures, then there is something quite seriously wrong with you and have no place in a degree.
i really hate people like you. You read one slashdot generalised article summary, and suddenly you are questioning the science of a plan put together by some of the smartest physicists. Isn't it more likely that you just don't understand the whole plan yet, and that if you spent a few weeks going over it all carefully, you might have a better idea for it. Either that, or just shut the fuck up.
I'm looking forward to civ4 immensely, but I'm worried about the screenshots that are comming out. They look very nice, but very much zoomed in. It looks like it might do the same jump that Command and conqueror did with its command and conquer generals - i.e. concentrate on graphics and make the game play, well, rubbish. :)
I pray Civ4 will be just as good as the other civs
This is exactly what he mean when he wrote:
:)
"65GPa is only the "expected required strength" if you want to have a 12fold or higher taper factor. If you want that, you can't claim that it'll cost as much as a shuttle replacement (already a bogus claim, though, with even Edwards numbers estimating 40B$). You're looking at costs measured in the hundreds of billions or trillions at that weak of a strength, for a small elevator."
The '12fold taper factor' is basically your pyramid. Well actually it's an upside down pyramid, but close enough
Because although I want certain people to die, I don't want the human race to cease to exist.
I agree with you. I was just immediately jumping to science's defence because I initially read it as "scientists are stupid because they didn't get the right answer immediately".
:)
You bring up an interesting point about Occam's Razor - one I hadn't thought of before. It's not easy being a good scientist, and we/they do make mistakes, but you just gotta do the best you can
Which is a shame, because I really liked the ideas behind it.
Every email is a document in a heirachal database. You could then setup rules so that information from it was automatically put into another database, or setup workflow rules so that you could specify a document has to be signed off by legal, HR etc first, and so on.
And because its a database, it was trivial to build a web interface to the email, with all the authentication done automatically, and so on.
The theory of gravity isn't proven at all. You can't prove anything, you can only disprove.
The "intelligent falling" theory is a logically valid theory, and holds up against the evidence. It might be "God" that pushes things down when you let go of them. We cannot prove that if you personally jumped off that cliff, on that particular day and time, that you would fall.
All we can do is generalise from past experiments.
I know that the definition of a species is that they no longer interbreed, and understand your post.
But that they might not have become two seperate species, and still might have been able to interbreed when one is more evolved that the other or what-have-you, is still an obvious idea.
I think you overstate the whole "scientists are waking up to the idea" etc. I bet if you went back 40 years and asked them they would have given all the possibilities we've discussed. It's just that you have to go with the simplist model until you have evidence that can no longer fit it. It's how science 'evolves'.
I had a choice between replying or modding you offtopic because I hate people that try to use reverse pyschology.
Anyway, I don't understand what you are saying at all. At some point some creature forked into two species. One went on to be human, and the other probably carried on evolving for a bit more before dying out for some reason. This seems obvious, and what I would have expected.
What am I misunderstanding here?
Go jump off a cliff. There's no irrefutable proof that you won't fall either.
Sometimes you have to act and do things without total proof.
In the UK we are taught how to prove every algorithm we use. I've heard that in the US this isn't the case.
As a result, the US students know a lot more algorithms, but don't know how to prove them until they do a math degree.
I'm from the UK, and I've never heard of that :)
With wikipedia, I like to read the Talk page and see if people are disagreeing with the content. On slashdot I read the comments to see if people disagree with the content, and so on.
With a printed encyclopedia I have no chance of being able to do that. That's kinda closed and opaque.