Likewise there's no reason to say that a $100 bottle of wine isn't better than a $1000 bottle just because someone is willing to pay for it. Frankly anything over $30 is a waste of money. All your paying for is rarity, not quality.
Yeah, I'm hoping. There still isn't anything as flexible as the old system monitor applet in 3.5. Between all the separate applets I can almost get what I used to have but not quite.
Anyway, thank you for your work on KDE4. Overall I love it. Since 4.3 it's been stable and a pleasure to use. I can't wait for 4.4.
Yes, they are. And yet, the decision to keep all settings in a brand new ~/.kde4 killed all the compatibility possible. At the very least, you should've implemented some sort of one-way copying of stuff from the old ~/.kde to the new location — updating and changing what old settings are replaced by new values. But you chose not to.
What distro are you using? I thought that default KDE kept using.kde for the directory name, but I could be wrong.
Anyway, there is a very easy way to copy.kde to.kde4.
I've seen tickets about the System Monitor applets and they were closed with won't fix saying if we wanted more features we should install some third party applets. Pretty weak, I'd be happy with simple stuff like having niced processes a different color in the CPU monitor.
The research is mixed, but certainly not enough evidence of harm exists to justify prohibition. Replace harmless with "maybe somewhat harmful" if you like, the argument still stands.
And the people supporting prohibition are still idiots or profiteers.
I've never heard of someone getting trashed off of Irish coffee. Maybe it happens sometimes, but I think that redbull and vodka's are much more likely to be abused.
So you've forced some people not to use a harmless substance at what cost? Billions of dollars wasted. Thousands killed by gangs and cartels. Millions of fellow citizens locked up and living off of your money. Countless violations of constitutional rights in order to enforce the pointless bans.
Prohibition is a disgrace and you've got to be either an idiot, or making money off it to argue otherwise.
The Face on Mars people didn't just insist that the new photos were of a different location and we were just told it was the face to stop people from asking questions?
Sure but the sites that don't work with javascript didn't exist on the old internet anyway. If you really want the internet circa 1994 experience you won't miss those pages.
I wasn't criticizing MSNBC, or making any comment about them at all. What I was commenting on was a sitting president demonizing a media network. It seems... unseemly. For a President of the United States. And I don't recall that being done in the recent past. So far no one has pointed out what I may have missed.
"Demonizing" is a bit of a stretch. And you seem to be missing the point that the reason no President has said something like that in the past is because there have been no media organizations passing as mainstream news in the past that are in any way comparable to Fox News.
If during the next Republican administration MSNBC replaces Joe Scarborough with Randi Rhodes and starts promoting anti-government rallies then I think the then current President would be in his rights to exclude them from interviews. Until that happens, Fox News is on its own.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe MSNBC isn't a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party so trying to equivocate it with Fox News is nonsense? Yes MSNBC's main talking heads currently lean left if you disregard Morning Joe but they are also frequently very critical of the Democrats.
Also during most of Bush's term MSNBC was much less liberal than it is now. Remember Tucker Carlson?
There's no comparison between the old network news and the 24-hour news stations. They both have the same amount of news to cover, but the 24-hour networks have an additional 23.5 hours to fill. Thus the real news gets lost in a sea of bloviating talking heads and "experts" prattling on about live news events before any facts can be established.
The difference is that Fox is not a legitimate news source. Just because there is "News" in their name doesn't mean they deserve any journalistic rights.
Remember that lawsuit local Fox station WTVT in Florida won securing their right to broadcast things as news that they know to be untrue? That's what's wrong with them.
And some of the vitriol Keith puts out against anyone or any group that has speaks ill of Obama...
Like himself? Keith has been very consistent about criticizing Obama for policies he has carried over from Bush. He's been very critical of Obama on things like Guantanamo, don't ask don't tell, and health care. He's in fact devoted at least one of his "Special Comments" entirely to Obama.
As a liberal I am not terribly fond of Keith myself, I think he is frequently over-the-top with his emotional rants. However it seems he at least tries to keep his criticisms consistent and fact based. Something that can not be said about someone like Rush.
I'm fairly familiar with California as I live there. Agriculture is huge in the southwest despite the desert. Massive swaths of desert are full of green crops from water diverted mostly from the Colorado River. And you are forgetting about the coastal, mountain, and central valley areas of California which are mostly not desert.
I used to live in New England about as far from the Mexican border as you can get, and the fields around me there were still worked by migrant labor.
If you say people who don't mind contributing to the health care of others are a great benefit to society then the corollary is that people who don't want to contribute to others are a great detriment to society. Isn't that why we have laws, to prevent people from being a detriment to society?
Slashdot Mirror
I just registered an out of state car a few months ago. It passed CA emissions the first time with no changes required.
I disagree. Strictly speaking, mass is not a continuous measure and yet significant digits are used.
Likewise there's no reason to say that a $100 bottle of wine isn't better than a $1000 bottle just because someone is willing to pay for it. Frankly anything over $30 is a waste of money. All your paying for is rarity, not quality.
Yeah, I'm hoping. There still isn't anything as flexible as the old system monitor applet in 3.5. Between all the separate applets I can almost get what I used to have but not quite.
Anyway, thank you for your work on KDE4. Overall I love it. Since 4.3 it's been stable and a pleasure to use. I can't wait for 4.4.
What distro are you using? I thought that default KDE kept using .kde for the directory name, but I could be wrong.
Anyway, there is a very easy way to copy .kde to .kde4.
I've seen tickets about the System Monitor applets and they were closed with won't fix saying if we wanted more features we should install some third party applets. Pretty weak, I'd be happy with simple stuff like having niced processes a different color in the CPU monitor.
The research is mixed, but certainly not enough evidence of harm exists to justify prohibition. Replace harmless with "maybe somewhat harmful" if you like, the argument still stands.
And the people supporting prohibition are still idiots or profiteers.
I've never heard of someone getting trashed off of Irish coffee. Maybe it happens sometimes, but I think that redbull and vodka's are much more likely to be abused.
So you've forced some people not to use a harmless substance at what cost? Billions of dollars wasted. Thousands killed by gangs and cartels. Millions of fellow citizens locked up and living off of your money. Countless violations of constitutional rights in order to enforce the pointless bans.
Prohibition is a disgrace and you've got to be either an idiot, or making money off it to argue otherwise.
So it's a homeopathic weapon.
The Face on Mars people didn't just insist that the new photos were of a different location and we were just told it was the face to stop people from asking questions?
Amateurs.
Sure but the sites that don't work with javascript didn't exist on the old internet anyway. If you really want the internet circa 1994 experience you won't miss those pages.
Why not the Chinese name weiqi? It is a Chinese game, after all.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the recent past. I'm not sure where I got that idea from.
Oh, right.
"Demonizing" is a bit of a stretch. And you seem to be missing the point that the reason no President has said something like that in the past is because there have been no media organizations passing as mainstream news in the past that are in any way comparable to Fox News.
If during the next Republican administration MSNBC replaces Joe Scarborough with Randi Rhodes and starts promoting anti-government rallies then I think the then current President would be in his rights to exclude them from interviews. Until that happens, Fox News is on its own.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe MSNBC isn't a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party so trying to equivocate it with Fox News is nonsense? Yes MSNBC's main talking heads currently lean left if you disregard Morning Joe but they are also frequently very critical of the Democrats.
Also during most of Bush's term MSNBC was much less liberal than it is now. Remember Tucker Carlson?
There's no comparison between the old network news and the 24-hour news stations. They both have the same amount of news to cover, but the 24-hour networks have an additional 23.5 hours to fill. Thus the real news gets lost in a sea of bloviating talking heads and "experts" prattling on about live news events before any facts can be established.
The difference is that Fox is not a legitimate news source. Just because there is "News" in their name doesn't mean they deserve any journalistic rights.
Remember that lawsuit local Fox station WTVT in Florida won securing their right to broadcast things as news that they know to be untrue? That's what's wrong with them.
Like himself? Keith has been very consistent about criticizing Obama for policies he has carried over from Bush. He's been very critical of Obama on things like Guantanamo, don't ask don't tell, and health care. He's in fact devoted at least one of his "Special Comments" entirely to Obama.
As a liberal I am not terribly fond of Keith myself, I think he is frequently over-the-top with his emotional rants. However it seems he at least tries to keep his criticisms consistent and fact based. Something that can not be said about someone like Rush.
I'm fairly familiar with California as I live there. Agriculture is huge in the southwest despite the desert. Massive swaths of desert are full of green crops from water diverted mostly from the Colorado River. And you are forgetting about the coastal, mountain, and central valley areas of California which are mostly not desert.
I used to live in New England about as far from the Mexican border as you can get, and the fields around me there were still worked by migrant labor.
It's not a fallacy, not eating healthy is detrimental to your health. Just as selfish people are detrimental to a society.
If you say people who don't mind contributing to the health care of others are a great benefit to society then the corollary is that people who don't want to contribute to others are a great detriment to society. Isn't that why we have laws, to prevent people from being a detriment to society?
Of course you prefer the current rationing by means system because it benefits you. Typical "I've got mine" libertarian.
Is that why American women are 11 times more likely to die in childbirth than a woman in Ireland? Too much giving birth while driving?
If you think taxes are stealing why not move to Somalia where you don't have to worry about the government robbing you.