Agreed. I played with the Debian 3.3 version and it's much better. Might actually be useful if I could remember the advantages of a Desktop Environment over a Windows Manager.
I've been using WindowMaker for a number of years now and while KDE is much better than it has been, I'm not familiar enough with it to see what advantages it would have over WindowMaker and how I use a computer today.
This will spell DOOM for all the public TV stations and local access TV
We will never see the likes of Waynes World again!!
Lets see... It will make competition between stations extremely fierce. It will also force them all into the most lucrative demographic, forgetting all others, so they will be the one of 12 channels you pay for. Which means that eventually they will all look the same, sound the same, and suck the same.
And I'm pretty certain that the net effect on the consumer is his TV expenses will go WAY UP!!! for the same number of channels that are actively watched on a weekly basis today. It will cost us hundreds per month to keep all the channels that you would need to retain just to catch the one sports event you want to watch, or the one show you like on a particular channel.
Personally, I have a lot of channels that I religiously TiVO for one or two shows a week. Hardly enough to pay for, but in this new model, I'll start looking for them on Peer to Peer networks.
Isn't that ironic? In order to raise more money the model changes to pay by channel. The net effect is more illegal distribution of television content on the internet.
Cute, but worthless. Just fills pages with arbitrarily obvious statements
CODE is a language in itself. So is English (or your preference). The problem is finding a bridge between the two that makes sense. I can't write comments for my PHB, he shouldn't be looking at the code anyways because he's an idiot and it will only make him feel stupid, which causes me a lot of extra work.
So who is the audience?
Re:Let's just have one Language
on
KDE 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
ebonics... Then no one will know what the fuck anyone is saying and we'll all just "pop a nine"...
It turns out that diesel engines crank out far more soot
You are the bane of this entire issue. Engines don't make pollution, Fuel makes pollution. Kind of like guns and people and who actually does the killing.
However, that point aside, you are right. But then why would it be that the government would put inplace a restriction upon diesel engines which cannot possible be complied with when the "real" solution won't be made available for another year? It would have made far more sense to put this emissions law into effect the same time that they make provisions for better fuel.
One of the obvious effects that this will have is that the European manufacturers will have to stop selling diesel cars in the US for a year. During 2005 and earlier, diesel cars have had a fantastic growth in the EU with numbers running about 40% of new car sales being diesel. I think that the high cost of gasoline and the vulnerability of our fuel supply, diesel is ripe for an explosion in the US. But with this new law in place, it's been stalled for at least a year.
And the American auto industry has nothing to compete with the EU diesel engines with. We haven't practical hybrids, though they are proving to be more fancy than fact as an environmentally positive vehicle. We haven't anything that resembles hydrogen fuel cells, though they too are showing signs of being far from efficient in the big picture. We haven't any diesel engines of the small block nature, expect maybe the Opel by GM, but I don't know enough to say anything more. In short, we have nothing to compete with such a new market product as small block diesel engines. So I would anticipate that the approach you will find in the US in the coming years to a program of anti-diesel FUD, legislative attacks....
I went to Exxon.com and couldn't find any.... Imagine that.
I guess it's just the investment recovery consideration more than the simple supply/demand that comes into play here. If you can replace the fossil fuel system you would have to discard the following items:
Middle East
Super tankers (they don't work on farms)
Gulf Coast drilling.
ANWAR, which was so recently won.
Oil refineries (bio-diesel isn't distallation but transesterfication)
All Ocean shore based facilities are in the wrong location
There is a lot of money wrapped up in what I just listed and no one is going to be quick to discard them anytime soon. If someone like Exxon took the lead they could go a long ways to vastly improve diesel fuel in America both in terms of public opinion (Bio-Diesel has very very low soot, it's used in mining operations) and economy. But they would have to be willing to pro-actively discard billions or trillions in investments in land rights, materiel investments, and then there are the billions it would take to reinvent these facilities for bio-diesel operations.
Exxon will never make this change until there is another company who is doing it and is so effective that they are biting Exxons market share. And please, I use Exxon loosely -- any oil company name will do.
America caste system is more based on money than color. True there are always exceptions to these social structures and always will be, but the decision to include or exclude someone is done more on the basis of financial standing and potention to improve my financial standing than color.
Since this is an accomplishment not by American Industry and is contrary to the current powerbrokers of Dino-fuels it won't mean shit in America.
2005: law is passed giving a tax credit for bio-diesel mixes. But this eliminates all B-100 biodesiel because it's not a mix. Tax rebates are not made available to the consumer.
2006: law goes into effect which raises the bar on small diesel engine emissions (commercial vehicles excluded) making it impossible to sell a new diesel car in the United States because the fuel used in the Unites States is too dirty to pass the emissions test. It is not the engine, it is the fuel that fails the test. There are no American automotive manufacturers selling a diesel engine in the United States.
2007: law is supposed to go into effect to introduce low sulphur dino-diesel which should permit diesel sales to go into effect. I'm a little suspicious that this law isn't currently under assault. But we won't know for another year.
Go search the internet. The technology for production of bio-diesel and the studies identifying the environmental benefits have been in publication, on the internet of all places, since 1998. And what has been done about it?
And that is why you have a graduated pricing curve. That was the whole point of my post. you have a pricing curve that follows something like x-squared or exponential curves. You pay 1X for most of your water and maybe 1.25X for a little bit to give you an incentive to look for better solutions. Meanwhile the jackass down the street is paying 50X and higher that that last part of his monthly water bill.
If he wants to keep going he can, but he knows the rules and can't complain about it. Just make it really painful for the jackass.
But there are alot of people who put a blinded faith in their electred president, especially if it's from their party.
And there are a lot of people who aren't willing to inconvenience themselves by doing anything about it.
And to think a lot of people blame SUV's for it. And the arguement is, "Well I feel safer in them.". Bull shit. They have commercial truck qualifications which means that they are dirtier and less safe than my tiny sedan. Add to that my sedan burns 25% the fuel (44mpg baby!!) and your SUV really sucks ass.
Rather than tax the shit out of everyone, making it almost impossible to keep the job I have, or afford buying a different car..... Incentive the crap out of everyone but only on long term solutions. They have to be thought out.
The European Union passed a law to force Bio-Diesel into 5% of everything in Europe. Now all the vegatable oil sources have skyrocketed in price. But the cheapest source to make BioDiesel from is Palm Oil. So you know what people are doing to solve the problem of high demand on Palm Oil?
They are cutting down rain forests to put up Palm Tree groves to produce Palm Oil so that can add Bio-Diesel into the fuels in Europe to save the environment. I shit you not.
Any solution has to thought out carefully.
Bio-Diesel is a fantastic option, really. Read up on it and learn about it. It contains zero sulphur. It's absolutely cleaner than any Dino-Diesel out there. Interestingly I can't find any evidence of a comparison between Gasoline and Bio-Diesel... But it can be made from Soy Beans and other crops suitable for the US agricultural environment.
Now get this... While they are stripping rain forests to grow palm trees for Europe, we continue to pay US farmers to grow nothing when there is an obvious demand in the global economy for products like Soy Beans. God help us if we actually end up exporting something from this country for a change. You know we could use it. So it could help out trade deficit, save money in dropped subsidies.
Re:this has nothing to do with whats better
on
To Flush Or Not To Flush
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The most effective way to encourage people to conserve water is to increase the price of water. You have to turn it into an economics structure.
Now the more socialist minded will balk at the idea of water prices going up for everyone. So you could take some queue's from California, add some creativity and end up with something like this: You get a tiered price structure per person in the household. No exceptions of any kind, period.
In California, according to relatives who live there, they had to conserve water they they fined people who used "too much" water. Those who continued to use too much found there water shut off at the street, no exceptions.
It might sound draconian, but it isn't really. You have a reasonable limit and a known set of parameters. If people know their limits ahead of time, then they become responsible for management of their own behaviour. And yes, the limit should be such that almost everyone pays a higher than the minimum price so that everyone has a greater incentive/reward to make conservation work more for them than it does today. That is to say, everyone would sit somewhere above that flat part of the curve.
I find it ironic that PHP came out many years ago as a cheap and easy way to make more dynamic web pages with a simpler structure than perl. It was also a greatly reduced structure from perl.
Then someone added a bunch of MySQL to it, hyped it up as LAMP and now everyone's on that bandwagon. And those that weren't were bitching about how if you want to do a real web application you would be better off using Perl and PostgreSQL.
And now here we are years alter and from the threads I've seen herein:
PHP has some horrible security pitfalls that are now being addressed.
MySQL is being dumped for SQLite which is just a flat file system, but then so it Berkeley DB which seems pretty damn fast too
PostgreSQL is still the last viable option for a real database that you can afford.
And PHP 6 is talking about adding NameSpaces.
What I see here is that as time marches on, PHP is becoming more difficult to use and more like Perl.
So when PHP rivals Perl in capability, it will likely rival Perl in complexity as well, only Perl has had 10+ years to settle out the bugs.
And what simplistic dynamic web page application will come along to replace the original implimentation of PHP? After all, the who reason PHP was so popular was the fact that is was simpler to follow than Perl was. But if it's as complex as Perl.... What next?
I am beginning to thing that PHP would be better off, in the long run, if they just left themselves to the area of making a bitchin' fantastic scripting tool for making dynamic web pages without trying to compete directly with Perl, Java, and C at the same time. It's kind of stupid.
You can't specialize students into careers while still in the area of general education. You have defined something like calculus to be a specialization course. I spent a semester in an Economics class trying to learn the concept of supply/demand curves and something about a slope of these lines having kind of significance. This was at the same time that I was taking differential equations the previous hour.
Think how much time you would have available for Economics if you already knew basic Calculus?
Your notion of teaching a narrower range of subjects and then specializing from there will make matters worse. I have countless experiences every week were I have to educate/re-educate people at work on the basics of math, science, and re-hashing middle-school level Algebra problem solving techniques.
My son is becoming very capable at guitar, but it was only after I explained to him the physics behind making notes and harmonics that he understood what he was doing to the strings and immediately went out to find all the harmonics available and how the changed when he retuned the guitar. Otherwise he would have been relegated to sitting around waiting for someone else to tell him about it.
Why not take a look at what other countries are doing instead of assuming you have the answer? They have a greatly expanded school week. They have a very high standard in subjects and a wide range.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with that comment that most webmail servers use IMAP as a backend.
Only a few of them do. It's much more difficult to create an IMAP based webmail application than it is to create a file based one. One of the biggest difficulties that I've run into so far is managing performance to it stays sane. There are a lot of things that IMAP servers do that filesystems don't and similarly a lot things that you have to account for in IMAP that you just don't have to worry about with file systems.
I've been running IMAP for years and just finished writing my own variant of a webmail server in Perl. Just couldn't find what I wanted in PHP and this runs really fast.
But IMAP works great. This isn't new. It's overdue.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I played with the Debian 3.3 version and it's much better. Might actually be useful if I could remember the advantages of a Desktop Environment over a Windows Manager.
I've been using WindowMaker for a number of years now and while KDE is much better than it has been, I'm not familiar enough with it to see what advantages it would have over WindowMaker and how I use a computer today.
Reminds me of a Vogon Cruiser
This will spell DOOM for all the public TV stations and local access TV
We will never see the likes of Waynes World again!!
Lets see... It will make competition between stations extremely fierce. It will also force them all into the most lucrative demographic, forgetting all others, so they will be the one of 12 channels you pay for. Which means that eventually they will all look the same, sound the same, and suck the same.
And I'm pretty certain that the net effect on the consumer is his TV expenses will go WAY UP!!! for the same number of channels that are actively watched on a weekly basis today. It will cost us hundreds per month to keep all the channels that you would need to retain just to catch the one sports event you want to watch, or the one show you like on a particular channel.
Personally, I have a lot of channels that I religiously TiVO for one or two shows a week. Hardly enough to pay for, but in this new model, I'll start looking for them on Peer to Peer networks.
Isn't that ironic? In order to raise more money the model changes to pay by channel. The net effect is more illegal distribution of television content on the internet.
Cute, but worthless. Just fills pages with arbitrarily obvious statements
CODE is a language in itself. So is English (or your preference). The problem is finding a bridge between the two that makes sense. I can't write comments for my PHB, he shouldn't be looking at the code anyways because he's an idiot and it will only make him feel stupid, which causes me a lot of extra work.
So who is the audience?
ebonics... Then no one will know what the fuck anyone is saying and we'll all just "pop a nine"...
My only question is, "how much memory does it consume?". Last I tried KDE it was swapping out my PC at 512MB. Simply unacceptable.
It turns out that diesel engines crank out far more soot
You are the bane of this entire issue. Engines don't make pollution, Fuel makes pollution. Kind of like guns and people and who actually does the killing.
However, that point aside, you are right. But then why would it be that the government would put inplace a restriction upon diesel engines which cannot possible be complied with when the "real" solution won't be made available for another year? It would have made far more sense to put this emissions law into effect the same time that they make provisions for better fuel.
One of the obvious effects that this will have is that the European manufacturers will have to stop selling diesel cars in the US for a year. During 2005 and earlier, diesel cars have had a fantastic growth in the EU with numbers running about 40% of new car sales being diesel. I think that the high cost of gasoline and the vulnerability of our fuel supply, diesel is ripe for an explosion in the US. But with this new law in place, it's been stalled for at least a year.
And the American auto industry has nothing to compete with the EU diesel engines with. We haven't practical hybrids, though they are proving to be more fancy than fact as an environmentally positive vehicle. We haven't anything that resembles hydrogen fuel cells, though they too are showing signs of being far from efficient in the big picture. We haven't any diesel engines of the small block nature, expect maybe the Opel by GM, but I don't know enough to say anything more. In short, we have nothing to compete with such a new market product as small block diesel engines. So I would anticipate that the approach you will find in the US in the coming years to a program of anti-diesel FUD, legislative attacks....
So... you sit in front of your computer starting at flying toasters waiting for someone to talk to you?
Pathetic...
I went to Exxon.com and couldn't find any.... Imagine that.
I guess it's just the investment recovery consideration more than the simple supply/demand that comes into play here. If you can replace the fossil fuel system you would have to discard the following items:
- Middle East
- Super tankers (they don't work on farms)
- Gulf Coast drilling.
- ANWAR, which was so recently won.
- Oil refineries (bio-diesel isn't distallation but transesterfication)
- All Ocean shore based facilities are in the wrong location
There is a lot of money wrapped up in what I just listed and no one is going to be quick to discard them anytime soon. If someone like Exxon took the lead they could go a long ways to vastly improve diesel fuel in America both in terms of public opinion (Bio-Diesel has very very low soot, it's used in mining operations) and economy. But they would have to be willing to pro-actively discard billions or trillions in investments in land rights, materiel investments, and then there are the billions it would take to reinvent these facilities for bio-diesel operations.Exxon will never make this change until there is another company who is doing it and is so effective that they are biting Exxons market share. And please, I use Exxon loosely -- any oil company name will do.
OK, so it Beer is some kind of health drink you should expect to see a natural progression of evolution to the following affects.
Alcoholics will thrive just so long as they stay away from any attempt to recover.
Recovered Alcoholics will become extinct.
I guess everyone else becomes the control group.
I think you are falling prey to the media hype.
America caste system is more based on money than color. True there are always exceptions to these social structures and always will be, but the decision to include or exclude someone is done more on the basis of financial standing and potention to improve my financial standing than color.
The important part here is, does it have any effect?
You must be kidding...
The oil companies have a lot more power than you think they do.
Since this is an accomplishment not by American Industry and is contrary to the current powerbrokers of Dino-fuels it won't mean shit in America.
2005: law is passed giving a tax credit for bio-diesel mixes. But this eliminates all B-100 biodesiel because it's not a mix. Tax rebates are not made available to the consumer.
2006: law goes into effect which raises the bar on small diesel engine emissions (commercial vehicles excluded) making it impossible to sell a new diesel car in the United States because the fuel used in the Unites States is too dirty to pass the emissions test. It is not the engine, it is the fuel that fails the test. There are no American automotive manufacturers selling a diesel engine in the United States.
2007: law is supposed to go into effect to introduce low sulphur dino-diesel which should permit diesel sales to go into effect. I'm a little suspicious that this law isn't currently under assault. But we won't know for another year.
Go search the internet. The technology for production of bio-diesel and the studies identifying the environmental benefits have been in publication, on the internet of all places, since 1998. And what has been done about it?
And that is why you have a graduated pricing curve. That was the whole point of my post. you have a pricing curve that follows something like x-squared or exponential curves. You pay 1X for most of your water and maybe 1.25X for a little bit to give you an incentive to look for better solutions. Meanwhile the jackass down the street is paying 50X and higher that that last part of his monthly water bill.
If he wants to keep going he can, but he knows the rules and can't complain about it. Just make it really painful for the jackass.
And what brought on the fungus?
There aren't that many people who believe it.
But there are alot of people who put a blinded faith in their electred president, especially if it's from their party.
And there are a lot of people who aren't willing to inconvenience themselves by doing anything about it.
And to think a lot of people blame SUV's for it. And the arguement is, "Well I feel safer in them.". Bull shit. They have commercial truck qualifications which means that they are dirtier and less safe than my tiny sedan. Add to that my sedan burns 25% the fuel (44mpg baby!!) and your SUV really sucks ass.
I think you are on a better track.
Rather than tax the shit out of everyone, making it almost impossible to keep the job I have, or afford buying a different car..... Incentive the crap out of everyone but only on long term solutions. They have to be thought out.
The European Union passed a law to force Bio-Diesel into 5% of everything in Europe. Now all the vegatable oil sources have skyrocketed in price. But the cheapest source to make BioDiesel from is Palm Oil. So you know what people are doing to solve the problem of high demand on Palm Oil?
They are cutting down rain forests to put up Palm Tree groves to produce Palm Oil so that can add Bio-Diesel into the fuels in Europe to save the environment. I shit you not.
Any solution has to thought out carefully.
Bio-Diesel is a fantastic option, really. Read up on it and learn about it. It contains zero sulphur. It's absolutely cleaner than any Dino-Diesel out there. Interestingly I can't find any evidence of a comparison between Gasoline and Bio-Diesel... But it can be made from Soy Beans and other crops suitable for the US agricultural environment.
Now get this... While they are stripping rain forests to grow palm trees for Europe, we continue to pay US farmers to grow nothing when there is an obvious demand in the global economy for products like Soy Beans. God help us if we actually end up exporting something from this country for a change. You know we could use it. So it could help out trade deficit, save money in dropped subsidies.
The most effective way to encourage people to conserve water is to increase the price of water. You have to turn it into an economics structure.
Now the more socialist minded will balk at the idea of water prices going up for everyone. So you could take some queue's from California, add some creativity and end up with something like this: You get a tiered price structure per person in the household. No exceptions of any kind, period.
In California, according to relatives who live there, they had to conserve water they they fined people who used "too much" water. Those who continued to use too much found there water shut off at the street, no exceptions.
It might sound draconian, but it isn't really. You have a reasonable limit and a known set of parameters. If people know their limits ahead of time, then they become responsible for management of their own behaviour. And yes, the limit should be such that almost everyone pays a higher than the minimum price so that everyone has a greater incentive/reward to make conservation work more for them than it does today. That is to say, everyone would sit somewhere above that flat part of the curve.
Well put.
I find it ironic that PHP came out many years ago as a cheap and easy way to make more dynamic web pages with a simpler structure than perl. It was also a greatly reduced structure from perl.
Then someone added a bunch of MySQL to it, hyped it up as LAMP and now everyone's on that bandwagon. And those that weren't were bitching about how if you want to do a real web application you would be better off using Perl and PostgreSQL.
And now here we are years alter and from the threads I've seen herein:
- PHP has some horrible security pitfalls that are now being addressed.
- MySQL is being dumped for SQLite which is just a flat file system, but then so it Berkeley DB which seems pretty damn fast too
- PostgreSQL is still the last viable option for a real database that you can afford.
- And PHP 6 is talking about adding NameSpaces.
What I see here is that as time marches on, PHP is becoming more difficult to use and more like Perl.So when PHP rivals Perl in capability, it will likely rival Perl in complexity as well, only Perl has had 10+ years to settle out the bugs.
And what simplistic dynamic web page application will come along to replace the original implimentation of PHP? After all, the who reason PHP was so popular was the fact that is was simpler to follow than Perl was. But if it's as complex as Perl.... What next?
I am beginning to thing that PHP would be better off, in the long run, if they just left themselves to the area of making a bitchin' fantastic scripting tool for making dynamic web pages without trying to compete directly with Perl, Java, and C at the same time. It's kind of stupid.
Everything has a place.
Namespaces? Like Perl Modules have namespaces starting the main::?
Then you need a real Relational Database Management System, like PostgreSQL.
You lack experience.
So will your students.
You can't specialize students into careers while still in the area of general education. You have defined something like calculus to be a specialization course. I spent a semester in an Economics class trying to learn the concept of supply/demand curves and something about a slope of these lines having kind of significance. This was at the same time that I was taking differential equations the previous hour.
Think how much time you would have available for Economics if you already knew basic Calculus?
Your notion of teaching a narrower range of subjects and then specializing from there will make matters worse. I have countless experiences every week were I have to educate/re-educate people at work on the basics of math, science, and re-hashing middle-school level Algebra problem solving techniques.
My son is becoming very capable at guitar, but it was only after I explained to him the physics behind making notes and harmonics that he understood what he was doing to the strings and immediately went out to find all the harmonics available and how the changed when he retuned the guitar. Otherwise he would have been relegated to sitting around waiting for someone else to tell him about it.
Why not take a look at what other countries are doing instead of assuming you have the answer? They have a greatly expanded school week. They have a very high standard in subjects and a wide range.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with that comment that most webmail servers use IMAP as a backend.
Only a few of them do. It's much more difficult to create an IMAP based webmail application than it is to create a file based one. One of the biggest difficulties that I've run into so far is managing performance to it stays sane. There are a lot of things that IMAP servers do that filesystems don't and similarly a lot things that you have to account for in IMAP that you just don't have to worry about with file systems.
I've been running IMAP for years and just finished writing my own variant of a webmail server in Perl. Just couldn't find what I wanted in PHP and this runs really fast.
But IMAP works great. This isn't new. It's overdue.