His point is that Windows, as a tightly integrated package, provides a solid base for applications developers.
However, I don't see why that doesn't apply to GNOME or KDE, which have the additional benefits of being largely architecture-independant. Wasn't Nautilus originally a third-party application written to integrate with GNOME and Enlightenment?
Summary...Adobe incorporated Javascript to allow document tracking. It can be disabled, but it'll pester you to re-enable it every time you open a document.
Why should I catagorically adopt the opinion of anyone? The fact that it's difficult to prove anything they say right or wrong merely coumpounds the problem.
Re:Ground telescopes 40x better than hubble (link)
on
Hope for Hubble
·
· Score: 1
So there's better resolution. As a number of other posts have pointed out, that doesn't mean you'll be free of atmospheric absorption of interesting regions of light.
I didn't mean to say he's wrong about everything. A cleaner interface built to his specifications may very well be beneficial to new users, and their efficiency would grow with their ability to use the tools. I won't. however, make any judgement on what interfaces would prove to be more efficient if given a fresh batch of users.
As for holding my packages at a current version, there's a variety of reasons, but the biggest reason can be summed up in a question: Who wants to maintain a software package set that's been left behind? Sure, versions 2.2 and 2.4 of the Linux kernel have maintainers, but all the interesting stuff is going on in the 2.6 tree.
What I'd really like is for them to continue on their current line of development, but leave in the ability to customize the experience. When GNOME went spatial, they didn't include easily-accessed settings to go back to the old behavior. I hear it can be done with gconf, but I don't want to spend time sifting through the root GNOME configuration. I'd rather be coding, recording, writing, or whatever task it is I'm working on.
Like I said, I don't mind that the GNOME people are making it easier for new people, I mind that they're making it more difficult for me. Keeping configuration options accessible without resorting to the GNOME equivalent of regedit would go quite a ways to maintaining its usability for established users.
He's an interface designer. It's his job to point out weaknesses in flawed GUIs and so forth. Yes, it's opinion. And one based on some experience in the subject of human-computer interface design.
So he deserves some respect. However, I still think he's wrong.
Indeed. You can become "accustomed to" a lot of stupid, or even bad things. Wouldn't it be better to correct flaws before it's too late?
What I've become accustomed to is a system that I've learned to be efficient with. Changing my system would require reaclimation and result in lost productivity. Unless you keep a user base continually unfamiliar with a UI, the more capable ones will become efficient with it. And once they're efficient, by the arguments you present, it's "too late."
Granted, GNOME has been working towards catering exclusively to the less capable. And by that, I don't mean "handicapped." Rather, I mean the least-common-denominator users like my grandparents, who only use the computer for email and scanning old slides. I don't mind that they're making it easier for me to get my grandparents to use Linux...I mind that they're making it harder for me to use it myself.
That you are accustomed to it doesn't mean it is a good way of doing things.
Unless someone can convince me I'll be more productive with the new system, I'm going to do things exactly the way I am. Forcing a new system on me will force me to find a way around it. I'm efficient the way I'm doing things now. Requiring me to learn a new system will result in lost productivity.
For example: Remember when GNOME switched Nautilus from tree-based to "spatial", or whatever it is that they call it? I still use GNOME, but I've stopped using Nautilus to browse with. Instead, I use gnome-terminal. It's faster and more efficient for me to have presences in multiple locations on my filesystem via a tabbed terminal than multiple windows.
It reads like an opinion piece passed off as fact. Sure, the specific things he describes may be there, but whether they're good, bad is a matter of what a user's accustomed to.
For instance, he complains about having a menu bar on every window, instead of one menu bar for all applications, the way Macs have. Personally, I hated the Mac method in this case. I'm accustomed to only being able to access visible windows' menues, so it's disconcerting when I find myself looking at, say, a text editor's menu when I'm trying to shut down the machine.
The same thing happened in the migration from Windows 3.x's window layout style to Windows 95's. ("Why the hell does the program close every time I try to maximize it?") And, to a lesser extent, 98/ME to XP. (WTH did "Programs" go? Or "Shut down" or "Log Out", for that matter?)
If someone were to "fix" every single item on that list, people will still complain, because you've eliminated their "GUI givens," the things that are a "given" when considering interacting with their GUI.
And they want cute little penguins to somehow get them laid by actual women, generally without them having to go anywhere they might actually meet women.
Forget the rest of it. I'll settle for this one.:)
And that, kids, is why you don't run unstable even if 90% of the time it is stable, it just keeps on changing all the time.
Oh, please. I've been running Debian for six years, about half of that while running unstable. Only once did an otherwise normal update process hose my system. That's a damn good track record.
There was one time, years ago, when an update to Debian/unstable's Perl packages led to a version mismatch between the Perl binaries and the modules that Perl apps depended on. The end result was that anything that depended on Perl broke, including Debian's package management process.
IIRC, that was one of the few times I had to reinstall Debian from scratch due to not knowing how to fix the problem. (In hindsight, dropping a fresh version of perl into/usr/local probably would have let me update to the fixed packages.)
Let's say you've got two individuals named John Dow. One's an IP lawyer, and one's a brain surgeon. Both of them have accrued enough fame in their circles that if you were to ask a lawyer and a brain surgeon who Jon Dow was, they'd both immediately have answers, but those answers were different.
However, only one of them could get "johndow.com", leaving the other out in the cold in terms of easy-to-remember domain names. If one were to have "johndow.md.pro" and the other were to have "johndow.law.pro", it would be fairly clear which site was for who, and the domains would be easy to remember.
The way I read it, "fully transmissible" means that if a person gets infected he's contagious through a variety of vectors. I don't think they're saying that merely being near the contained sample will cause someone to be infected.
It would really help to RTFA this time, because, while this is a serious screwup, it's not what a lot of people are thinking after reading the poorly worded summary.
In response to your misunderstanding, the sample was distributed in a kit intended for testing sample-identification equipment. Not for testing on people, or even for making vaccines.
PLEASE, people, RTFA this time. The last thing we need is for people to jump to conclusions.
As an aside...I picked up a 24-port switch a couple weeks ago. It's running my private network in my room. And it's louder than my two 750MHz Durons and my 200MHz K6, combined. But it helps me sleep at night.:)
So you use Linux. So do I. But I'm pretty sure 10% of internet users don't use Linux, OS-X, any other non-IE-supporting OS, or any combination therof, as their primary desktop for browsing the web.
For some companies using well-supported technologies such as CSS1, supporting multiple browsers isn't difficult. However, if some web designer decided to take maximum advantage of the way IE supports standards such as CSS and HTML, there's going to be significant investment in fixing the site. The number of people without a recent version of Internet Explorer available isn't yet high enough to be considered a mainstream condition.
For a show where subtlety isn't a big deal, such as slapstick or overdrama? Sure. For a genre that requires character development? Generally not.
The early seasons of any of the latter-day Trek series aren't as good as the seasons developed after the show has matured. Actors and writers need experience working with characters if they're to come up with a product that's believable and interesting.
Typically, this has meant the first couple seasons of Trek series.
Slashdot Mirror
His point is that Windows, as a tightly integrated package, provides a solid base for applications developers.
However, I don't see why that doesn't apply to GNOME or KDE, which have the additional benefits of being largely architecture-independant. Wasn't Nautilus originally a third-party application written to integrate with GNOME and Enlightenment?
Summary...Adobe incorporated Javascript to allow document tracking. It can be disabled, but it'll pester you to re-enable it every time you open a document.
Why should I catagorically adopt the opinion of anyone? The fact that it's difficult to prove anything they say right or wrong merely coumpounds the problem.
OK, then. :)
So there's better resolution. As a number of other posts have pointed out, that doesn't mean you'll be free of atmospheric absorption of interesting regions of light.
I'd guess on the order of 500-800 million for a human servicing mission, and probably 1-1.5 billion for a robotic.
I'll have to ask for credentials before I'll take your word on that one.
I didn't mean to say he's wrong about everything. A cleaner interface built to his specifications may very well be beneficial to new users, and their efficiency would grow with their ability to use the tools. I won't. however, make any judgement on what interfaces would prove to be more efficient if given a fresh batch of users.
As for holding my packages at a current version, there's a variety of reasons, but the biggest reason can be summed up in a question: Who wants to maintain a software package set that's been left behind? Sure, versions 2.2 and 2.4 of the Linux kernel have maintainers, but all the interesting stuff is going on in the 2.6 tree.
What I'd really like is for them to continue on their current line of development, but leave in the ability to customize the experience. When GNOME went spatial, they didn't include easily-accessed settings to go back to the old behavior. I hear it can be done with gconf, but I don't want to spend time sifting through the root GNOME configuration. I'd rather be coding, recording, writing, or whatever task it is I'm working on.
Like I said, I don't mind that the GNOME people are making it easier for new people, I mind that they're making it more difficult for me. Keeping configuration options accessible without resorting to the GNOME equivalent of regedit would go quite a ways to maintaining its usability for established users.
He's an interface designer. It's his job to point out weaknesses in flawed GUIs and so forth. Yes, it's opinion. And one based on some experience in the subject of human-computer interface design.
So he deserves some respect. However, I still think he's wrong.
Indeed. You can become "accustomed to" a lot of stupid, or even bad things. Wouldn't it be better to correct flaws before it's too late?
What I've become accustomed to is a system that I've learned to be efficient with. Changing my system would require reaclimation and result in lost productivity. Unless you keep a user base continually unfamiliar with a UI, the more capable ones will become efficient with it. And once they're efficient, by the arguments you present, it's "too late."
Granted, GNOME has been working towards catering exclusively to the less capable. And by that, I don't mean "handicapped." Rather, I mean the least-common-denominator users like my grandparents, who only use the computer for email and scanning old slides. I don't mind that they're making it easier for me to get my grandparents to use Linux...I mind that they're making it harder for me to use it myself.
That you are accustomed to it doesn't mean it is a good way of doing things.
Unless someone can convince me I'll be more productive with the new system, I'm going to do things exactly the way I am. Forcing a new system on me will force me to find a way around it. I'm efficient the way I'm doing things now. Requiring me to learn a new system will result in lost productivity.
For example: Remember when GNOME switched Nautilus from tree-based to "spatial", or whatever it is that they call it? I still use GNOME, but I've stopped using Nautilus to browse with. Instead, I use gnome-terminal. It's faster and more efficient for me to have presences in multiple locations on my filesystem via a tabbed terminal than multiple windows.
It reads like an opinion piece passed off as fact. Sure, the specific things he describes may be there, but whether they're good, bad is a matter of what a user's accustomed to.
For instance, he complains about having a menu bar on every window, instead of one menu bar for all applications, the way Macs have. Personally, I hated the Mac method in this case. I'm accustomed to only being able to access visible windows' menues, so it's disconcerting when I find myself looking at, say, a text editor's menu when I'm trying to shut down the machine.
The same thing happened in the migration from Windows 3.x's window layout style to Windows 95's. ("Why the hell does the program close every time I try to maximize it?") And, to a lesser extent, 98/ME to XP. (WTH did "Programs" go? Or "Shut down" or "Log Out", for that matter?)
If someone were to "fix" every single item on that list, people will still complain, because you've eliminated their "GUI givens," the things that are a "given" when considering interacting with their GUI.
And they want cute little penguins to somehow get them laid by actual women, generally without them having to go anywhere they might actually meet women.
:)
Forget the rest of it. I'll settle for this one.
And that, kids, is why you don't run unstable even if 90% of the time it is stable, it just keeps on changing all the time.
Oh, please. I've been running Debian for six years, about half of that while running unstable. Only once did an otherwise normal update process hose my system. That's a damn good track record.
Dunno how to do it in Fedora, but in Debian you mark the package as "held" in aptitude, dselect, kpackage, or synaptic.
There was one time, years ago, when an update to Debian/unstable's Perl packages led to a version mismatch between the Perl binaries and the modules that Perl apps depended on. The end result was that anything that depended on Perl broke, including Debian's package management process.
/usr/local probably would have let me update to the fixed packages.)
IIRC, that was one of the few times I had to reinstall Debian from scratch due to not knowing how to fix the problem. (In hindsight, dropping a fresh version of perl into
Let's say you've got two individuals named John Dow. One's an IP lawyer, and one's a brain surgeon. Both of them have accrued enough fame in their circles that if you were to ask a lawyer and a brain surgeon who Jon Dow was, they'd both immediately have answers, but those answers were different.
However, only one of them could get "johndow.com", leaving the other out in the cold in terms of easy-to-remember domain names. If one were to have "johndow.md.pro" and the other were to have "johndow.law.pro", it would be fairly clear which site was for who, and the domains would be easy to remember.
I guess it simply never caught on.
The way I read it, "fully transmissible" means that if a person gets infected he's contagious through a variety of vectors. I don't think they're saying that merely being near the contained sample will cause someone to be infected.
Nah...Linux would be the next best thing.
Warning...troll on a karma raising mission.
It would really help to RTFA this time, because, while this is a serious screwup, it's not what a lot of people are thinking after reading the poorly worded summary.
/me larts "An anonymous reader"...
In response to your misunderstanding, the sample was distributed in a kit intended for testing sample-identification equipment. Not for testing on people, or even for making vaccines.
PLEASE, people, RTFA this time. The last thing we need is for people to jump to conclusions.
I assume they're talking about these.
Look at his comment history. That account started posting yesterday, and it looks like he's pumping up his karma.
And with more heat, the more noise.
:)
As an aside...I picked up a 24-port switch a couple weeks ago. It's running my private network in my room. And it's louder than my two 750MHz Durons and my 200MHz K6, combined. But it helps me sleep at night.
I'll pour a pot of coffee in your lap. You tell me if it's hot. :)
So you use Linux. So do I. But I'm pretty sure 10% of internet users don't use Linux, OS-X, any other non-IE-supporting OS, or any combination therof, as their primary desktop for browsing the web.
For some companies using well-supported technologies such as CSS1, supporting multiple browsers isn't difficult. However, if some web designer decided to take maximum advantage of the way IE supports standards such as CSS and HTML, there's going to be significant investment in fixing the site. The number of people without a recent version of Internet Explorer available isn't yet high enough to be considered a mainstream condition.
For a show where subtlety isn't a big deal, such as slapstick or overdrama? Sure. For a genre that requires character development? Generally not.
The early seasons of any of the latter-day Trek series aren't as good as the seasons developed after the show has matured. Actors and writers need experience working with characters if they're to come up with a product that's believable and interesting.
Typically, this has meant the first couple seasons of Trek series.