"Absolutely. If you attempt to look like someone else's product then people will only notice the differences as being inferior to the original. Linux needs to keep its own identity."
I agree with this. I don't mind if a given OS has its own desktop, so long as it works consistently and well. It doesn't have to look like anything else in the known universe, other than the clues to behaviour that are universal (like the mouse pointer clicks and drags; the keyboard types). It has to behave predictably with respect to itself, not act like Windows some of the time, MacOS some other times, and 15 different ways the rest of the time.
This is perhaps why out of all the (dozens of) linux distros I've tried, the only one I've kept for any length of time was Puppy -- it's relatively primitive but it's all itself, not anything else.
I have exactly the same problem, except to my mind, the linux desktops do a crappy imitation of the Mac desktop, not the Windows desktop. Maybe it's the attempt to hybridize the two that is failing?
But it's not the desktop that drives me back to Windows every time. It's the plethora of little annoying bugs that never seem to get fixed.
But the OEMs have no reason to be other than restrained in their use of our private data. All they care about is what appeals to us when next we buy a car. Conversely, law enforcement (and political campaigns) demonstrably wish to track every citizen all the time, lest some of us think evil thoughts and do wicked things. I'm not afraid of automakers. I *am* afraid of where my government is going with this.
You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. -- Lyndon B. Johnson, 36th President of the United States
So, in a country as big as the U.S., with cities as large as ours, and as far-flung, where freedom of movement is important to our everyday lives, driving is suddenly a "choice"??
I'm reminded of Soviet policies... sure you had a choice. You could choose to not do ordinary things like drive to the next town, or go across the border to the next country. It's a choice. Right.
Most of the time when I've done "strange maneuvering" it's been to *avoid* an accident or obstacle or roadkill-in-training. Under the constant-data-collection theory of driving, I could potentially be penalized worse for *avoiding* an accident than from getting into one.
Vaccination is a controlled, limited exposure to a virus that's been whacked on the head enough times that it's no longer able to infect you.
Natural exposure is uncontrolled and likely to be in far greater amounts than any vaccine (thus more likely to reach the particle threshold for infection), plus no one has beaten the virus into a noninfective state.
If you think vaccine is gonna harm your child, what on earth do you think natural exposure (far more intense than any vaccine) will do??
So which do you prefer? Cuz you're gonna be exposed to one or the other, sooner or later.
"Alternate hypothesis ; anti-vaxxers are actually a shadowy conspiracy of the radical Green movement who want the human race thinning out a bit to lower our impact on Mother Earth."
From some of the other activities I know of from the radical greens, ARs, and suchlike, there is probably more than a tad of fact in that hypothesis. Their goals are often the "unintended consequences", not the obvious.
Kinda like "you knew skydiving without a parachute was dangerous and you did it anyway, so why should we pay up?" albeit less obviously dramatic. Pay for unexpected or ordinary risks, don't pay for "you damn well knew better" or "your tinfoil hat is too tight" risks. Which should be reasonably easy to delineate.
I knew someone (now deceased, probably diabetic coma tho was undiagnosed) who upon having a fit of severe depression, claimed he did nothing for a week, ate nothing for a week, and gained all his excess weight just that quick. He searched the world over for an explanation and finally hit on "human hibernation". He had no explanation when I asked him (a one-time physics major at that!!) what had happened to the laws of thermodynamics that week.
This "acquire a better grade of gut flora" is probably the root of canine copraphagia (stool eating). In a given pack of dogs, the lower-ranked (less successful) individuals will consistently eat stools from the higher-ranked (more successful) individuals. There are other variables (diet, accessability) but is what I've observed across over 40 years as a canine professional... and it occurs despite that "pack ranking" is inherited, not achieved. I'd guess tho it doesn't change the individual's pack status, it does increase the viability of the pack as a whole. Thus the instinct.
I patronize a local greasy spoon that serves enormous portions (their standard plate is a *serving platter*) because their original clientele were railroad construction workers, who ate like a horse cuz they worked like a horse. I consider this place a good deal because I usually get 3 or 4 meals out of what they serve as one meal, and it's pretty obvious a lot of other folks eat there for the same reason. This place probably goes through more doggie bags than any other ten restaurants combined.
But a lot of today's kids, raised on supersized meals and high-carb/low-fat/low-protein diets that fuck up your appetite control, don't have any concept of portion control, let alone appetite control; they'll just empty the plate.
One of the first things we studied in my university biochemistry classes was why Atkins works (and this was long before it became a Popular Diet). As you say, it encourages ketosis which probably is the natural state of our bodies (primitive man didn't have much access to grains, or for that matter fruits and veggies -- most were very small and with little edible mass compared to what we have today, plus contained much less fructose==fruit sugar -- try tasting a wild plum or wild apple someday! Sour! Ptui!!) Primitive man probably consumed most of his grain/carbs via whole small rodents, which eat largely seeds... half-digested seeds are nutritionally somewhat akin to medievial-style beer. So you may want to substitute mice for your beer.:D
When I had chickens, I found they'd pretty much eat anything that didn't eat them first. Grass, weeds, bugs, young snakes, baby birds that fell out of trees, dog food, dog poop, eggs I hadn't found yet, and occasionally each other.
Try the Irish or Scottish oatmeal, takes longer to cook but is more satisfying and you can do a whole big pot the same way as now. (You can get Irish steelcut anywhere now, but I've only seen Scottish, which is a finely ground variant, at Winco groceries.)
I haven't seen enough of Romney to make a judgment on that. But judgment against Obama is not necessarily endorsement of Romney -- who I don't consider the great answer either, but probably has more financial sense than Obama. (If only because Obama has clearly demonstrated that he has none, when it comes to other people' money. Romney could hardly be worse in that dept.)
[If the election had come down to Obama vs Santorum, I think I'd have had to vote for Chthulu.]
Slashdot Mirror
"Absolutely. If you attempt to look like someone else's product then people will only notice the differences as being inferior to the original. Linux needs to keep its own identity."
I agree with this. I don't mind if a given OS has its own desktop, so long as it works consistently and well. It doesn't have to look like anything else in the known universe, other than the clues to behaviour that are universal (like the mouse pointer clicks and drags; the keyboard types). It has to behave predictably with respect to itself, not act like Windows some of the time, MacOS some other times, and 15 different ways the rest of the time.
This is perhaps why out of all the (dozens of) linux distros I've tried, the only one I've kept for any length of time was Puppy -- it's relatively primitive but it's all itself, not anything else.
I have exactly the same problem, except to my mind, the linux desktops do a crappy imitation of the Mac desktop, not the Windows desktop. Maybe it's the attempt to hybridize the two that is failing?
But it's not the desktop that drives me back to Windows every time. It's the plethora of little annoying bugs that never seem to get fixed.
But the OEMs have no reason to be other than restrained in their use of our private data. All they care about is what appeals to us when next we buy a car. Conversely, law enforcement (and political campaigns) demonstrably wish to track every citizen all the time, lest some of us think evil thoughts and do wicked things. I'm not afraid of automakers. I *am* afraid of where my government is going with this.
You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
-- Lyndon B. Johnson, 36th President of the United States
Which, like most of the risks we've become so averse to in modern society, is so small as to be statistically insignificant.
So, in a country as big as the U.S., with cities as large as ours, and as far-flung, where freedom of movement is important to our everyday lives, driving is suddenly a "choice"??
I'm reminded of Soviet policies... sure you had a choice. You could choose to not do ordinary things like drive to the next town, or go across the border to the next country. It's a choice. Right.
Most of the time when I've done "strange maneuvering" it's been to *avoid* an accident or obstacle or roadkill-in-training. Under the constant-data-collection theory of driving, I could potentially be penalized worse for *avoiding* an accident than from getting into one.
"Unusual" droughts??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_States
Looks like they're a regular thing to me. And that's just for one part of the world.
So you're saying these are the de facto forms? ;)
Great, now I'm gonna be laughing all day, just like the old days :)
('Zat you, Chris??)
...Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Pull!!
I usually explain it thus:
Vaccination is a controlled, limited exposure to a virus that's been whacked on the head enough times that it's no longer able to infect you.
Natural exposure is uncontrolled and likely to be in far greater amounts than any vaccine (thus more likely to reach the particle threshold for infection), plus no one has beaten the virus into a noninfective state.
If you think vaccine is gonna harm your child, what on earth do you think natural exposure (far more intense than any vaccine) will do??
So which do you prefer? Cuz you're gonna be exposed to one or the other, sooner or later.
"Alternate hypothesis ; anti-vaxxers are actually a shadowy conspiracy of the radical Green movement who want the human race thinning out a bit to lower our impact on Mother Earth."
From some of the other activities I know of from the radical greens, ARs, and suchlike, there is probably more than a tad of fact in that hypothesis. Their goals are often the "unintended consequences", not the obvious.
Kinda like "you knew skydiving without a parachute was dangerous and you did it anyway, so why should we pay up?" albeit less obviously dramatic. Pay for unexpected or ordinary risks, don't pay for "you damn well knew better" or "your tinfoil hat is too tight" risks. Which should be reasonably easy to delineate.
You're dead on...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How-children-lost-right-roam-generations.html
I knew someone (now deceased, probably diabetic coma tho was undiagnosed) who upon having a fit of severe depression, claimed he did nothing for a week, ate nothing for a week, and gained all his excess weight just that quick. He searched the world over for an explanation and finally hit on "human hibernation". He had no explanation when I asked him (a one-time physics major at that!!) what had happened to the laws of thermodynamics that week.
This "acquire a better grade of gut flora" is probably the root of canine copraphagia (stool eating). In a given pack of dogs, the lower-ranked (less successful) individuals will consistently eat stools from the higher-ranked (more successful) individuals. There are other variables (diet, accessability) but is what I've observed across over 40 years as a canine professional... and it occurs despite that "pack ranking" is inherited, not achieved. I'd guess tho it doesn't change the individual's pack status, it does increase the viability of the pack as a whole. Thus the instinct.
And then people say "Fructose bad" and "eat more fruit" in the same breath. Make up my mind!!
I patronize a local greasy spoon that serves enormous portions (their standard plate is a *serving platter*) because their original clientele were railroad construction workers, who ate like a horse cuz they worked like a horse. I consider this place a good deal because I usually get 3 or 4 meals out of what they serve as one meal, and it's pretty obvious a lot of other folks eat there for the same reason. This place probably goes through more doggie bags than any other ten restaurants combined.
But a lot of today's kids, raised on supersized meals and high-carb/low-fat/low-protein diets that fuck up your appetite control, don't have any concept of portion control, let alone appetite control; they'll just empty the plate.
One of the first things we studied in my university biochemistry classes was why Atkins works (and this was long before it became a Popular Diet). As you say, it encourages ketosis which probably is the natural state of our bodies (primitive man didn't have much access to grains, or for that matter fruits and veggies -- most were very small and with little edible mass compared to what we have today, plus contained much less fructose==fruit sugar -- try tasting a wild plum or wild apple someday! Sour! Ptui!!) Primitive man probably consumed most of his grain/carbs via whole small rodents, which eat largely seeds... half-digested seeds are nutritionally somewhat akin to medievial-style beer. So you may want to substitute mice for your beer. :D
When I had chickens, I found they'd pretty much eat anything that didn't eat them first. Grass, weeds, bugs, young snakes, baby birds that fell out of trees, dog food, dog poop, eggs I hadn't found yet, and occasionally each other.
Try the Irish or Scottish oatmeal, takes longer to cook but is more satisfying and you can do a whole big pot the same way as now. (You can get Irish steelcut anywhere now, but I've only seen Scottish, which is a finely ground variant, at Winco groceries.)
Are we completely sure those two girls weren't part of a setup?
I haven't seen enough of Romney to make a judgment on that. But judgment against Obama is not necessarily endorsement of Romney -- who I don't consider the great answer either, but probably has more financial sense than Obama. (If only because Obama has clearly demonstrated that he has none, when it comes to other people' money. Romney could hardly be worse in that dept.)
[If the election had come down to Obama vs Santorum, I think I'd have had to vote for Chthulu.]