That usually (YMMV) means you're eating the wrong food. Your body tends to stay hungry until it has got what it needs. Eat something else and the craving remains.
I wonder how many more trolls are going to post as AC and refuse to acknowledge the fact that different people's bodies process food differently, or that different people's bodies have very different hunger mechanism.
That seems a little farfetched, unless you ate one of those things she is allergic to because you wanted her to die. I suppose you could be looking at involuntary manslaughter.
Well yeah that's much better, isn't it. If my wife died I'd feel so much better about being up on manslaughter instead of murder charges. What an asshole!
So, in other words, you have a complete lack of self control and are unable to motivate yourself to keep yourself healthy.
Not at all.
Losing weight is stupidly easy: eat less, exercise more.
That completely ignores the fact that people feel hunger differently, people lose weight differently, and that even those that have the ability to lose weight can work their arses off and still lose nothing in a week. If weight loss were as easy for everyone as you make it out to be we wouldn't have a problem.
So you have a bad ankle, talk to your doctor to come up with an exercise routine that doesn't involve massive amounts of walking.
Yeah because I'd never have thought of that you twit. There are only a handful of things that would work for me. Weight training isn't going to work now is it. That's great for bulking up. One thing that might work is swimming. If I could get to a pool 2 hours a day maybe I'd have a chance.
30 minutes a day. That's it. If you can't do that, then yes, it's a self control issue
Dude if 30 minutes a day worked for me, I'd do it in a heartbeat. The only couple of times I have lost weight in my life I lived on salad and lean meat/chicken in tiny portions and did AT LEAST 2 hours of heavy excercise a day. Anything short of that doesn't cut it. What's worse is when I've stopped it's taken a couple of months of eating reasonable portions and not excercising as much to put on all the weight I've lost over 6-8 months AND add some more kilos as the body overcompensates. Now you can choose to believe me or not. I'm guessing not. That's up to you. I happen to know for a fact that I'm not lying. Meanwhile I CAN'T keep that up while working 10 hrs a day 5 days a week plus some weekends, spending 3 hours a day in commute, doing chores till midnight when I get home and helping to raise a family.
See that's the trouble with morons like your good self. You think it's a simple case of self control and even when someone demonstrates that they have self control you're happier to blame the person for not making super human efforts and for having a body that doesn't react in the same way as theirs. You have no regard for their actual situation. You're just eager to place the entire blame on some moral or psychological defect. Ironically it's a "let them eat cake" solution that you offer.
If swine flu is what finally motivates these people to seek and complete treatment, why is this a bad thing?
Well there's a long list of reasons, but here are 2:
1) It takes a long time to lose weight if you're morbidly obese. Months or years. Forget the "biggest loser" style shows designed to sell weight loss products. That kind of weight loss is much less healthy than having the weight on in the first place. Epidemics on the other hand move much more quickly.
2) Some of the people we're talking about are morbidly obese because of other underlying illnesses. If you're expecting someone with chronic respiratory problems to get up and jog 5 kilometers every morning you're smoking crack
Or shall we continue to scream about the oppression of our right to be fat, forgetting that the virus doesn't give two sh--s either way.
How about you walk a mile in the shoes of someone fat before you start mouthing off? This isn't a case where a few extra kilos in most cases makes the difference between life and death. We're not talking about the beauty and fashion magazine kind of fat you're thinking of. The virus might not give two shits either ways, but perhaps we or more specifically YOU can. It's not about being politically correct. It's about having some god damn compassion instead of an attitude that those disgusting fatties can go lose some weight - it's all their own fault.
Now I'm eating much better, drinking mostly water, and exercising a few times a week. I get at most about one cold a year now, and even that is not as bad as the worst of the colds I used to get.
I too have been through years without so much as a sniffle, and had years where I've been struck down repeatedly by colds and flus. It hasn't correlated with what I ate. Correlation isn't causation is overused on/. but in this case I think it's appropriate. That doesn't mean that you're wasting your time eating and drinking better. In the long run it will probably make you live longer and healthier. It's just your use of colds and flu as an indicator that I find completely bogus.
Being obese is pretty much an invitation for all sorts of problems. I love my steak, fries, chocolate, soda and burgers, I just eat them once every other week in small quantities. It helps when I think of baby carrots and apples as snacks.
Now imagine trying to do that with severe cravings for the food. The kind of cravings addicts have for their poison of choice.
I'm fat. I'm able to avoid a huge variety of foods due to my wife's allergies. (If I've eaten the tiniest amounts of garlic, onion, capcicum, chilli, or a whole raft of spices one kiss from me could kill her. Do you have any idea how many different foods have trace amounts of these? I'm lucky if I can eat the fries at a fast food joint. If they use chicken salt, forget it). I don't have a simple issue with self control. If I did she'd be dead and I'd be up on murder charges. On the other hand I have a huge problem eating small portions. If I do I literally walk around voraciously hungry.
Oh and by the way I have an ankle so arthritic that I don't know how many more years I'll be able to walk for. At the moment if I had to run for my life I still could but I'd be paying for it with a couple of weeks worth of agony. Combine this with a desk job and yeah I _could_ try to make time for the gym (which I hate with a passion) but keeping up an excercise routine is to say the least problematic.
People who think it's a simple self control issue are idiots. Your makeup pre-disposes you to wanting to eat and to piling on weight. It's like looking at a dyslexic person and saying it's just a matter of self control when it comes to reading. It shows a profound lack of understanding of the issue.
If I'm flying a flight simulator the last thing I need is some poor attempt at humour interupting at the expense of the 3D graphics. The fun comes out of improving your skills at the task. However for an adventure - by which I mean any game with a storyline and plot - well placed and well done humour will keep my interest. So it does depend on the game.
I'd say given the failure and attrition rate, the gaming industry are getting it wrong and that they need to listen to what their user wants. Humour in the right context makes the game more fun. That is the only reason to play any game. It's fun. If it's not, it'll tank.
I'm less picky. Any optical wired mouse with decent accuracy (and no I don't need gaming accuracy) will do. Since I don't buy my own equipment at work I prefer mice that are standard - 2 buttons and a scroll wheel button. It's nice if they work on the desk so I don't need a mouse pad.
I spend most of my time programming but at home I have the same requirements for photo editing. I own 2 graphics tablets but they hardly get used. The mouse does very well.
To me this question is about as useful to ask as "what's the best spoon for stirring coffee"...and I don't drink coffee. It's not as if you have to spend a fortune to get a decent mouse these days. I don't spend more than AUD50 (something like USD30) no a mouse.
Yes. That statement is the height of sophisticated intelligence. All you've shown me is that you're condescending, rude and can't actually argue a point. Have a nice life. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
Bill Gates was a champion of MS Flight Simulator - a franchise that ran for decades. The last version FSX was complete ass and took 3 goes to get right....which culuminated in the sacking of the entire programming staff at Aces Studios (the guys that wrote the sim).
FS2004 included a kiosk mode so any library or museum could demonstrate a flight simulation of an existing or historic plane. FSX killed that feature and tried to sell a monstrosity of a commerical system called ESP for big dollars to do the same. FSX also added activation and all it's headaches.
Bill Gates was a nasty piece of work but under his leadership there was some good stuff done. Now there's nothing.
Anyone telling us that dedicated GPS is going the way of the dinosaur is talking marketing drivel and trying to sell you a phone with a GPS.
The chips sets in the phones I've tried including the one on my Nokia 6220 classic are complete crap compared to my TomTom one XL or my Garmin Etrex Legend Hcx. The dedicated GPS units lock on quickly and continue to work if you take them indoors. (Sometimes they even lock on indoors, which amazes me because I live in a 2 story house). In contrast my phone GPS takes ages, loses the signal easily and to top it off if I want maps or assisted GPS I have to pay for it.
Not to mention the fact that they're more useful in a car rather than attached to a mobile phone (which is illegal to operate while driving a vehicle where I live). I'd expect rather to see them built into cars more and more as standard.
Unfortunately the GPS companies are also trying to make you pay again and again with map updates. Still, phones also require map updates. I'd love to see a GPS come on the market that used open maps (Open maps do exist!) and attached into some standard sized dashboard module. Let the hardware manufacturers make their money honestly on the hardware.
I know about setInterval. It is NOT a substitute for a genuine pause. You shouldn't have to create a new method and alter your control flow just to pause without eating CPU. You end up having to code a dozen methods for a dozen pauses instead of a single one (or worse, using recursion).
Try issuing garbled commands to a dog. I haven't done it but I'd wager good money you could teach a dog to do two different things by reversing the syllables. The dog just hears different commands.
Do you run a lot of plug-ins, by any chance? Browser makers don't control plug-in code (other than the code for their own plug-ins, of course), but this code is still capable of taking out a browser process if it goes bad.
It shouldn't be. If your browser architecture doesn't protect or isolate the browser well, that is on the browser developers. No point whining about it when the perceived quality of your browser then tanks.
The other big benefit is that one process can't hog the CPU: even if one page gets into a ridiculously tight JavaScript loop that bogs that page down, the others should continue to load.
Calls to Javascript should be interuptable. This competes with performance requirements for Javascript but the real problem is that Javascript design is so horrible. Did you know there isn't even a decent sleep/wait function in Javascript. You have to busy wait meaning 100% CPU usage. A built in sleep function that relinquishes control for so many milliseconds is something that's been a basic part of scripting languages for decades. HORRIBLE.
Re:Need conversion to units of Libraries of Congre
on
How Heavy Is a Petabyte?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I've seen stats that all the books ever written by mankind add up to 50 PB of data storage. Presumable unZipped:)
If little magnets were going to affect your brain, wouldn't anyone who'd had a brain scan end up a vegetable?
Of course it pays to sell idiots little magnets and claim all sorts of health benefits. Some may even benefit from a placebo effect. (It doesn't pay to try to sell them MRI machines...there are so few idiots THAT rich).
I think i'll remain skeptical unless more solid evidence turns up.
The web isn't what it used to be. The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone. The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven. The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.
That's fine. The web is fantastic for content delivery and for filling out forms. But the web is also trying to be my photo editor, my scientific application, my spreadsheet, my hardcore games machine, my flight simulator....you get the idea.
The web is not suited to every damned thing.
I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.
I'm not certain that's really something you get a choice in.
Of course I get a choice. I get to vote with my feet. If I don't want to use a new web based version of something, I simply don't (at least for home and personal use).
Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS? Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS? Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?
Nope. The web is not the OS. The entire attempt to enmesh the two is a grave misunderstanding of what the OS does. The web is an interface. The OS communicates with the hardware. Getting rid of the window manager and marrying simply removes options and possibilities and it does NOT give you anything beyond what you already have when you launch a web browser through your window manager. The entire paradigm is totally ridiculous.
These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.
No, it won't! It's just adding another layer of complexity. What you need for graphics editing and design is access to an interface that's able to quickly talk to the hardware and present dynamic content without going back and talking to a server half a world away. We already have that. Creating a web centric window manager browser hybrid and then circumventing the need to talk back to the server so that the content can appear as dynamic is a STUPID way to do it.
I'm not a big fan of Google Earth. It doesn't seem to have much of a point to me. I do enjoy Gmail though, and I make use Google Docs from time to time. Enough people out there are unimpressed with Google's search to keep folks like Yahoo and Ask in business.
Well you lack imagination. Google Earth was at least innovative. It allows you to bring up satellite imagery of most of the globe - something we didn't have before. Gmail though is just another mail app. There were plenty of web mail applications before GMail and they didn't have big brother retention policies like GMail. Google Docs is a stupid idea. Putting every application on the web is simply a security risk, and you become dependent on software you no longer have any control over should you wish to access those documents.
The fact of the matter is that an awful lot of work is done through a web UI these days. And if you can replace a full-blown computer with some kind of thin client you can, potentially, save a lot of time and money on maintenance. This is just a web-based thin client, nothing more or less.
Yes and another word for thin client is dumb terminal. You no longer have a powerful computer at your disposal - you have a "dumb" terminal, and you'll eat what you're fed and like it - you have no alternative. What's more the control of the server is no longer with you or your organisation - it's with a handful of megacorps. It's a foolish trade off that in the long run can only end in tears.
And if Google sees success with its Chrome OS you can certainly expect to see competition appear. There's nothing preventing you from rolling out your own Linux+Firefox/Opera/whatever thin client.
Sorry but I'm not about to compete in the enslavement of the computer user.
The web is not the OS. The web is...the web. I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app. Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application. I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end. Google does search very well, but I've hated most of their other stuff. (Google Earth is one exception) I expect no different from this.
Yes, I'd say that it was quite reasonable for something that's clearly illegal under the standing law.
That depends. Will $3000 bankrupt her? Will it deprive her from supporting her family? $3000 is still too much given that you can wilfully break many other laws and get fined much less. $3000 is a LOT more reasonable than a couple of million though. It's at least in the ballpark of sanity.
I'd say for most people like her community service would be a better punishment than huge fines or jail time.
Yet another piece of biometric technology that means if I'm having an off day, get a twitch in my eye etc. I get locked out of my own data. Yippee!!! Yay!
Slashdot Mirror
That usually (YMMV) means you're eating the wrong food. Your body tends to stay hungry until it has got what it needs. Eat something else and the craving remains.
I wonder how many more trolls are going to post as AC and refuse to acknowledge the fact that different people's bodies process food differently, or that different people's bodies have very different hunger mechanism.
That seems a little farfetched, unless you ate one of those things she is allergic to because you wanted her to die. I suppose you could be looking at involuntary manslaughter.
Well yeah that's much better, isn't it. If my wife died I'd feel so much better about being up on manslaughter instead of murder charges. What an asshole!
So, in other words, you have a complete lack of self control and are unable to motivate yourself to keep yourself healthy.
Not at all.
Losing weight is stupidly easy: eat less, exercise more.
That completely ignores the fact that people feel hunger differently, people lose weight differently, and that even those that have the ability to lose weight can work their arses off and still lose nothing in a week. If weight loss were as easy for everyone as you make it out to be we wouldn't have a problem.
So you have a bad ankle, talk to your doctor to come up with an exercise routine that doesn't involve massive amounts of walking.
Yeah because I'd never have thought of that you twit. There are only a handful of things that would work for me. Weight training isn't going to work now is it. That's great for bulking up. One thing that might work is swimming. If I could get to a pool 2 hours a day maybe I'd have a chance.
30 minutes a day. That's it. If you can't do that, then yes, it's a self control issue
Dude if 30 minutes a day worked for me, I'd do it in a heartbeat. The only couple of times I have lost weight in my life I lived on salad and lean meat/chicken in tiny portions and did AT LEAST 2 hours of heavy excercise a day. Anything short of that doesn't cut it. What's worse is when I've stopped it's taken a couple of months of eating reasonable portions and not excercising as much to put on all the weight I've lost over 6-8 months AND add some more kilos as the body overcompensates. Now you can choose to believe me or not. I'm guessing not. That's up to you. I happen to know for a fact that I'm not lying. Meanwhile I CAN'T keep that up while working 10 hrs a day 5 days a week plus some weekends, spending 3 hours a day in commute, doing chores till midnight when I get home and helping to raise a family.
See that's the trouble with morons like your good self. You think it's a simple case of self control and even when someone demonstrates that they have self control you're happier to blame the person for not making super human efforts and for having a body that doesn't react in the same way as theirs. You have no regard for their actual situation. You're just eager to place the entire blame on some moral or psychological defect. Ironically it's a "let them eat cake" solution that you offer.
If swine flu is what finally motivates these people to seek and complete treatment, why is this a bad thing?
Well there's a long list of reasons, but here are 2:
1) It takes a long time to lose weight if you're morbidly obese. Months or years. Forget the "biggest loser" style shows designed to sell weight loss products. That kind of weight loss is much less healthy than having the weight on in the first place. Epidemics on the other hand move much more quickly.
2) Some of the people we're talking about are morbidly obese because of other underlying illnesses. If you're expecting someone with chronic respiratory problems to get up and jog 5 kilometers every morning you're smoking crack
Or shall we continue to scream about the oppression of our right to be fat, forgetting that the virus doesn't give two sh--s either way.
How about you walk a mile in the shoes of someone fat before you start mouthing off? This isn't a case where a few extra kilos in most cases makes the difference between life and death. We're not talking about the beauty and fashion magazine kind of fat you're thinking of. The virus might not give two shits either ways, but perhaps we or more specifically YOU can. It's not about being politically correct. It's about having some god damn compassion instead of an attitude that those disgusting fatties can go lose some weight - it's all their own fault.
Now I'm eating much better, drinking mostly water, and exercising a few times a week. I get at most about one cold a year now, and even that is not as bad as the worst of the colds I used to get.
I too have been through years without so much as a sniffle, and had years where I've been struck down repeatedly by colds and flus. It hasn't correlated with what I ate. Correlation isn't causation is overused on /. but in this case I think it's appropriate. That doesn't mean that you're wasting your time eating and drinking better. In the long run it will probably make you live longer and healthier. It's just your use of colds and flu as an indicator that I find completely bogus.
Being obese is pretty much an invitation for all sorts of problems. I love my steak, fries, chocolate, soda and burgers, I just eat them once every other week in small quantities. It helps when I think of baby carrots and apples as snacks.
Now imagine trying to do that with severe cravings for the food. The kind of cravings addicts have for their poison of choice.
I'm fat. I'm able to avoid a huge variety of foods due to my wife's allergies. (If I've eaten the tiniest amounts of garlic, onion, capcicum, chilli, or a whole raft of spices one kiss from me could kill her. Do you have any idea how many different foods have trace amounts of these? I'm lucky if I can eat the fries at a fast food joint. If they use chicken salt, forget it). I don't have a simple issue with self control. If I did she'd be dead and I'd be up on murder charges. On the other hand I have a huge problem eating small portions. If I do I literally walk around voraciously hungry.
Oh and by the way I have an ankle so arthritic that I don't know how many more years I'll be able to walk for. At the moment if I had to run for my life I still could but I'd be paying for it with a couple of weeks worth of agony. Combine this with a desk job and yeah I _could_ try to make time for the gym (which I hate with a passion) but keeping up an excercise routine is to say the least problematic.
People who think it's a simple self control issue are idiots. Your makeup pre-disposes you to wanting to eat and to piling on weight. It's like looking at a dyslexic person and saying it's just a matter of self control when it comes to reading. It shows a profound lack of understanding of the issue.
In other news, Egyptians sue over confusion with ancient cultural artifact.
More details here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWP-AsG5DRk
And yeah, I know it's CO2 ... you want a global-warming joke instead, *you* make it.
Okay.
Yo mamma so fat, when she exhales Britain has a heatwave.
If I'm flying a flight simulator the last thing I need is some poor attempt at humour interupting at the expense of the 3D graphics. The fun comes out of improving your skills at the task. However for an adventure - by which I mean any game with a storyline and plot - well placed and well done humour will keep my interest. So it does depend on the game.
I'd say given the failure and attrition rate, the gaming industry are getting it wrong and that they need to listen to what their user wants. Humour in the right context makes the game more fun. That is the only reason to play any game. It's fun. If it's not, it'll tank.
I'm less picky. Any optical wired mouse with decent accuracy (and no I don't need gaming accuracy) will do. Since I don't buy my own equipment at work I prefer mice that are standard - 2 buttons and a scroll wheel button. It's nice if they work on the desk so I don't need a mouse pad.
I spend most of my time programming but at home I have the same requirements for photo editing. I own 2 graphics tablets but they hardly get used. The mouse does very well.
To me this question is about as useful to ask as "what's the best spoon for stirring coffee"...and I don't drink coffee. It's not as if you have to spend a fortune to get a decent mouse these days. I don't spend more than AUD50 (something like USD30) no a mouse.
You're dumb. I'm done with this conversation. :D
Yes. That statement is the height of sophisticated intelligence. All you've shown me is that you're condescending, rude and can't actually argue a point. Have a nice life. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
If only there was one for Miss Teen USA South Carolina 2007...
There was one, but the bimbo got you lost and would start prattling about world peace for no reason. I guess she's not popular for her brains.
Bill Gates was a champion of MS Flight Simulator - a franchise that ran for decades. The last version FSX was complete ass and took 3 goes to get right....which culuminated in the sacking of the entire programming staff at Aces Studios (the guys that wrote the sim).
FS2004 included a kiosk mode so any library or museum could demonstrate a flight simulation of an existing or historic plane. FSX killed that feature and tried to sell a monstrosity of a commerical system called ESP for big dollars to do the same. FSX also added activation and all it's headaches.
Bill Gates was a nasty piece of work but under his leadership there was some good stuff done. Now there's nothing.
Anyone telling us that dedicated GPS is going the way of the dinosaur is talking marketing drivel and trying to sell you a phone with a GPS.
The chips sets in the phones I've tried including the one on my Nokia 6220 classic are complete crap compared to my TomTom one XL or my Garmin Etrex Legend Hcx. The dedicated GPS units lock on quickly and continue to work if you take them indoors. (Sometimes they even lock on indoors, which amazes me because I live in a 2 story house). In contrast my phone GPS takes ages, loses the signal easily and to top it off if I want maps or assisted GPS I have to pay for it.
Not to mention the fact that they're more useful in a car rather than attached to a mobile phone (which is illegal to operate while driving a vehicle where I live). I'd expect rather to see them built into cars more and more as standard.
Unfortunately the GPS companies are also trying to make you pay again and again with map updates. Still, phones also require map updates. I'd love to see a GPS come on the market that used open maps (Open maps do exist!) and attached into some standard sized dashboard module. Let the hardware manufacturers make their money honestly on the hardware.
You mean this?
http://phpjs.org/functions/usleep:574
That's called a busy wait loop. The processor usage skyrockets. It's not usable if you want a well behaved app. Try again.
I know about setInterval. It is NOT a substitute for a genuine pause. You shouldn't have to create a new method and alter your control flow just to pause without eating CPU. You end up having to code a dozen methods for a dozen pauses instead of a single one (or worse, using recursion).
Try issuing garbled commands to a dog. I haven't done it but I'd wager good money you could teach a dog to do two different things by reversing the syllables. The dog just hears different commands.
Do you run a lot of plug-ins, by any chance? Browser makers don't control plug-in code (other than the code for their own plug-ins, of course), but this code is still capable of taking out a browser process if it goes bad.
It shouldn't be. If your browser architecture doesn't protect or isolate the browser well, that is on the browser developers. No point whining about it when the perceived quality of your browser then tanks.
The other big benefit is that one process can't hog the CPU: even if one page gets into a ridiculously tight JavaScript loop that bogs that page down, the others should continue to load.
Calls to Javascript should be interuptable. This competes with performance requirements for Javascript but the real problem is that Javascript design is so horrible. Did you know there isn't even a decent sleep/wait function in Javascript. You have to busy wait meaning 100% CPU usage. A built in sleep function that relinquishes control for so many milliseconds is something that's been a basic part of scripting languages for decades. HORRIBLE.
I've seen stats that all the books ever written by mankind add up to 50 PB of data storage. Presumable unZipped :)
You've seen ESTIMATES.
If little magnets were going to affect your brain, wouldn't anyone who'd had a brain scan end up a vegetable?
Of course it pays to sell idiots little magnets and claim all sorts of health benefits. Some may even benefit from a placebo effect. (It doesn't pay to try to sell them MRI machines...there are so few idiots THAT rich).
I think i'll remain skeptical unless more solid evidence turns up.
The web isn't what it used to be. The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone. The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven. The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.
That's fine. The web is fantastic for content delivery and for filling out forms. But the web is also trying to be my photo editor, my scientific application, my spreadsheet, my hardcore games machine, my flight simulator....you get the idea.
The web is not suited to every damned thing.
I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app.
I'm not certain that's really something you get a choice in.
Of course I get a choice. I get to vote with my feet. If I don't want to use a new web based version of something, I simply don't (at least for home and personal use).
Would you feel better if it was Apple announcing the Safari OS? Or Mozilla announcing the Firefox OS? Or Microsoft announcing the Internet Explorer OS?
Nope. The web is not the OS. The entire attempt to enmesh the two is a grave misunderstanding of what the OS does. The web is an interface. The OS communicates with the hardware. Getting rid of the window manager and marrying simply removes options and possibilities and it does NOT give you anything beyond what you already have when you launch a web browser through your window manager. The entire paradigm is totally ridiculous.
These days it seems absurd to talk about running Photoshop or AutoCAD through a web browser... But in another dozen years it may make perfect sense.
No, it won't! It's just adding another layer of complexity. What you need for graphics editing and design is access to an interface that's able to quickly talk to the hardware and present dynamic content without going back and talking to a server half a world away. We already have that. Creating a web centric window manager browser hybrid and then circumventing the need to talk back to the server so that the content can appear as dynamic is a STUPID way to do it.
I'm not a big fan of Google Earth. It doesn't seem to have much of a point to me. I do enjoy Gmail though, and I make use Google Docs from time to time. Enough people out there are unimpressed with Google's search to keep folks like Yahoo and Ask in business.
Well you lack imagination. Google Earth was at least innovative. It allows you to bring up satellite imagery of most of the globe - something we didn't have before. Gmail though is just another mail app. There were plenty of web mail applications before GMail and they didn't have big brother retention policies like GMail. Google Docs is a stupid idea. Putting every application on the web is simply a security risk, and you become dependent on software you no longer have any control over should you wish to access those documents.
The fact of the matter is that an awful lot of work is done through a web UI these days. And if you can replace a full-blown computer with some kind of thin client you can, potentially, save a lot of time and money on maintenance. This is just a web-based thin client, nothing more or less.
Yes and another word for thin client is dumb terminal. You no longer have a powerful computer at your disposal - you have a "dumb" terminal, and you'll eat what you're fed and like it - you have no alternative. What's more the control of the server is no longer with you or your organisation - it's with a handful of megacorps. It's a foolish trade off that in the long run can only end in tears.
And if Google sees success with its Chrome OS you can certainly expect to see competition appear. There's nothing preventing you from rolling out your own Linux+Firefox/Opera/whatever thin client.
Sorry but I'm not about to compete in the enslavement of the computer user.
You forgot to tell us to "get off your lawn".
Don't you mean get off the web. Everything is the web remember.
It's not about being old or being a luddite. It's about applying some goddamn common sense.
The web is not the OS. The web is...the web. I do NOT want everything to be a goddamn web app. Web apps work very well for certain applications, and Google has shown that they can push the limits with dynamic content, but that does not mean the web application is an appropriate model for every damned application. I don't like the Chrome browser and I don't need an OS named Chrome that is actually Linux with a lame web browser bolted on as the front end. Google does search very well, but I've hated most of their other stuff. (Google Earth is one exception) I expect no different from this.
What sort of books do you prefer to buy? Does your buying strategy include more "Minimal Perl" than "Blue Ocean Strategy?
So which route should I take if I answered Lonely Planet guides and any escapist fiction I can get my hands on?
Originally she was offered a $3,000 settlement.
Yes, I'd say that it was quite reasonable for something that's clearly illegal under the standing law.
That depends. Will $3000 bankrupt her? Will it deprive her from supporting her family? $3000 is still too much given that you can wilfully break many other laws and get fined much less. $3000 is a LOT more reasonable than a couple of million though. It's at least in the ballpark of sanity.
I'd say for most people like her community service would be a better punishment than huge fines or jail time.
Yet another piece of biometric technology that means if I'm having an off day, get a twitch in my eye etc. I get locked out of my own data. Yippee!!! Yay!