Sorry but that makes no sense. (and that host doesn't exist so I couldn't read the whole story =)
Let's assume we have 49% Republicans and the rest of the voters is divided between Democrats and Greens. Let's also assume that everyone is either left or right and therefore anyone who voted Dem as #1 voted Green as #1 and vice versa. Now, regardless how many people vote for the Greens, either Dems or Greens will be the smallest party in round #1 and therefore the other one will get 51% of the votes and win the election.
I assume that other people have put more thought into all that election stuff so it'd be nice if someone could point out my error
You forgot that USB is asynchronous which is the better way for cheap periphery that doesn't need all that bandwidth Firewire provides (keyboards, mice, printers, etc).
Firewire is superior for hardrives and similar applications but it negates the advantage of having only one type of bus for everything so if tomorrow we all had to choose one and only one I'd go with USB but as it stands now both have their uses
Articles referenced here only discuss archeoptryx (sp?) as one such transitional species. But one single instance of something is NOT proof
There are no "transitional species". Evolution has no goal therefore there are no "milestone species" with less important "transitional species" between them. Evolution is a constant process (not speedwise, depending on the circumstances changes can be blindingly fast or very, very slow) where every piece of information we find provides just a snapshot of a transition between the state before and the state after.
That whole transitional species argument is utter bs
For instance...I walk into the room and tell you I'm Jesus and that I need you to perform some non-trivial task for me. You're not going to do it...you're going to assume I'm crazy or a con man. As well you should.
If I doubt you I don't really believe in you, do I?
Pascal's gamble doesn't say anything about choosing your religion. It is talking about already having faith vs. not having it.
Therefore if someone really believed that you were Jesus and would do what you wanted him to, I'm sure he'd die as a happy man (he personally helped God after all).
So faith would be nice but that doesn't make any easier to start believing in something - that you have to do on your own
2. It's not about ppl who can't fix their PCs, it's about people who
have absolutely no idea what they're doing (that's more like letting a 3-year-old driving a car) or
don't *want* to learn doing simple tasks because they've got the strange idea that their PC has an obligation to correct their errors
3. how are you supposed to know when something is a virus if you are not a total computer geek and the e-mail comes from a friend of yours? You're not 100% sure what it is? You don't open it. If you're not absolutely sure what you're doing first ask the person who sent it if they did send it and what it is.
CB: The Movie was released in August 2001. AFAIK the relevant date for an Oscar nomination is the time it was first shown publicly not the year of the US release. Therefore Knockin on Heaven's Door wouldn't have been a possible choice for the Oscars.
The real problem are the questions. An astonishing number of people has almost no opinion on most topics and will choose whatever sounds favorable at that instant. (e.g. "Should our heroic president, victor of three wars, be allowed by the rightous people in this country to serve additional four years as president of the United States or do we let the liberal trash win?" versus "Do we let that lying POS usurp the highest office in this country once more or are 4 years of unprecedented unemployment and a new Vietnam enough?")
Yeah, Gconf is *so* superior. I always miss the registry when I'm away from Windows, too.
SCNR, really =), cleaning up kcontrol would be a *very good* idea I'm not arguing with you here. I'd really like to see simple and advanced profiles with all the stuff of the Gnome control center plus some essentials (language selection for example) as standard and a seperate section/a big red button for people who want all the settings.
That said one thing I'd like Gnome to reverse is the decision to abolish the apply/ok button in the settings. That's outright dangerous imho.
KDE is geared to the user who's already seen a PC once. As everyone using plain KDE managed to install Linux on his box I think that's a reasonable assumption.
Distributions can modify KDE as they want (the *modular* control center comes in handy here =P ) so it isn't overwhelming for newbies.
It's easy to choose defaults and hide functionality for newbies.
That said most newbies I know are more comfortable with KDE than with Gnome because KDE with its default settings is similar to Windows in look and feel.
Perhaps they offer you the other DE but the support is often lackluster at best.
Red Hat KDE is ridiculous and Bluecurve (I think that's what it's called) was practically maiming KDE. Gnome on SuSE otoh always lacked the polish their KDE had. Similar things can be said for a lot of distributions
Then don't do it. Noone forces you to change everything, the defaults of KDE are at least as sensible as the ones of Gnome (although with a different focus)
That said, cdrecord now *can* burn directly without the ide-scsi emulation-layer.
AFAIK cdrdao *can't*.
Does anyone know a patch for cdrdao because I'd like to burn without ide-scsi (there has to be some advantage to using 2.6 =) but with k3b (the best app out there).
I didn't dispute that but perhaps I could have been clearer by calling her a incompetent rabid GNOME fangirl. =)
That said I really don't understand why her story still appear on/. I haven't read even one single article by her that wasn't simply wrong, to incomplete to retain any meaning or biased to the max.
If you read Eugenia's previous reviews you'll also notice that she's a rabid GNOME fangirl (at least on Linux, we all know that BeOS was the ultimate OS).
If she says KDE is faster it has to be so unbelievably clear that not even Pravda could deny it =P
If some people believe that something went worse it reasonable to assume that they liked 1.4 better therefore the question was why some liked 1.4 better. =P
exploited the oil-for-food (or, as some like to call, the oil-for-palaces) program to pay for rearming
No, he wanted to do it but couldn't because of the sanctions. If he used it for rearming where were the WMDs where were the Scuds?
The Kay report even talks about previously unknown negotiations with North Korea in purchasing weapons materials
Yeah. But they didn't purchase anything. You know why? Because the sanctions worked. Iraq paid but North Korea didn't deliver because they thought Iraq was being watched too closely.
The Bush administration never said Saddam was an imminent threat. In fact, Bush said we couldn't wait until Saddam became an imminent threat That's fine but I can name at least 3 countries which would have been much better targets (North Korea: nukes, desperate; Pakistan: nukes, nuklear stand-off with India, Islamic revolution waiting to happen; Saudi Arabia: sponsoring terrorists to buy domestic peace but less and less successful as it seems) and many possibilities to do something without a military strike (securing Afghanistan, hadn't the US abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet pull-out we wouldn't have had the Taliban problem at all; support of democratic movements in the mid-east and ex-soviet-republics instead of the dictatorships the US is supporting now; etc)
The whole point was to remove a brutal dictator who starved and butchered his people
With support of a number of equally brutal dictators who starve... e.g. Uzbekistan (sp?)
exploited the oil-for-food program That's true, but doing so by bombing the country is questionable at best. You can ask the Iraqis whether they're happy that Bush stopped Saddam from exploiting the oil-for-food program.
ignored over a dozen U.N. Resolutions
I don't know actual numbers but I'd think that the worst offenders would be Israel and Turkey (for the Kurds and Cyprus).
used and had WMD
That was the reason for Desert Storm. If you'd watch the news you'd know that the WMDs were nonexistant.
attempted to assassinate a U.S. president I thought it was an ex-president. But apart from that how many people are you willing to sacrifice so Junior can take revenge for daddy. And with all the political assassinations planned by the US during the Cold War I don't think you're on moral high ground right now.
paid Palestinian suicide bombers
AFAIK he only said he'd do that but never paid
paid for and supported a terrorist training camp (including airplane hijack training) That's nice but if it's about terrorists Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the border regions of Pakistan would have been more sensible targets.
lied to and deceived U.N. weapons inspectors
Which apparently didn't prevent them from finding the WMDs
Remember North Korea? Remember good-ol' Jimmy Carter going over there and negotiating with them? Yea, "containment" worked with them alright. That's right *I* remember North Korea, Bush didn't. Otherwise he would have dealt with the country that openly said that it ignored a treaty with the US and developed WMDs, *real* WMDs. Chemical weapons are brutal and all but you can't compare their lethality to even a single nuke
Drowning Afghanistan with troops isn't going to root out bin Laden from his cave anyways
Taliban elements still are in the caves of southern Afghanistan and there are few military tasks so manpower intensive as clearing a mountain range.
Besides, it seems UBL is in Iran right now Huh? Proof? Evidence? And don't forget after crying wolf once it should better be watertight this time
and was transfered there before the bombing Which bombing?
You should read RAND: Nation-Building from Germany to Iraq I quote: "The highest levels of casualties have occurred in the operatio
The question was why some liked 1.4 better than 2 - I just said that the fact that 2 had a totally different goal might have something to do with it. Actually in the case of Epiphany/Galeon it was worse enough that there was a split.
My other point was that if you reduce the number of options choosing the important ones and choosing the right default settings becomes *very* important and I don't agree with them on some decisions.
My problem with Gnome2 is the philosophy change of gnome.
The main argument why Gnome 1 was better than KDE always was "it's more configurable", "I can change it to behave the way *I* want it to"
Now with Gnome 2 it's suddenly options are bad, simplicity, Joe Average, etc (Actually the last time I tried Gnome Nautilus showed folder contents case sensitive and I didn't find an option to change that - I can't imagine that my mom would want it that way, perhaps I'm blind but imho it's the wrong setting nevertheless). That's a 180 turn in the goals of GNOME and I know a number of people who really believed in the old goals and weren't just part of the anti-KDE crowd who turned away from Gnome because of it.
Perhaps the Iraq operation wouldn't be such a clusterfuck today if the UN stepped up and enforced its own resolutions.
Read the Kay report. The sanctions worked. Iraq was no immediate danger. Hunting Osama would have made more sense.
Perhaps the Iraq operation wouldn't be such a clusterfuck today if Clinton hadn't cut our military in half.
But it's simply wrong. The problem isn't Clinton cutting the military in half (actually I have no idea what he did with the military) but what Rumsfeld did with the military. The US military proved to be more than adequate at defeating the Iraqi army the problem is that they lack the know how for occupying and administrating the country and Rumsfeld himself reduced the part of the US Army which specializes in that.
With the current army the only way to secure Iraq would be more soldiers but the reason that only 150000 were used wasn't something Clinton did but the all new shiny Rumsfeld doctrine
Actually it depends on the context. Normally I call it Linux (e.g. when talking to some Joe Average user about my computer), debian when talking to a Linux guru.
I only use X11/KDE(/Enlightenment) when explicitly talking about that part of the UI
Soo, IMHO you should have talked about calling it Linux because Sun calls the OS "Java Desktop" while it's actually Linux. Would Sun call their system "Java Linux" then we could start specifying the UI (and in this case GNOME would say more than XFree because there are very few Linux systems not using XFree and the DE actually has a greater impact on the look-and-feel than switching to a different X Server or graphical interface)
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I could've sworn I'd reloaded the page just a minute ago... *boink*
Let's assume we have 49% Republicans and the rest of the voters is divided between Democrats and Greens. Let's also assume that everyone is either left or right and therefore anyone who voted Dem as #1 voted Green as #1 and vice versa. Now, regardless how many people vote for the Greens, either Dems or Greens will be the smallest party in round #1 and therefore the other one will get 51% of the votes and win the election.
I assume that other people have put more thought into all that election stuff so it'd be nice if someone could point out my error
Firewire is superior for hardrives and similar applications but it negates the advantage of having only one type of bus for everything so if tomorrow we all had to choose one and only one I'd go with USB but as it stands now both have their uses
There are no "transitional species". Evolution has no goal therefore there are no "milestone species" with less important "transitional species" between them. Evolution is a constant process (not speedwise, depending on the circumstances changes can be blindingly fast or very, very slow) where every piece of information we find provides just a snapshot of a transition between the state before and the state after.
That whole transitional species argument is utter bs
I'm sure all identical twins among the /. readers will thank you for that assurance
If I doubt you I don't really believe in you, do I?
Pascal's gamble doesn't say anything about choosing your religion. It is talking about already having faith vs. not having it.
Therefore if someone really believed that you were Jesus and would do what you wanted him to, I'm sure he'd die as a happy man (he personally helped God after all).
So faith would be nice but that doesn't make any easier to start believing in something - that you have to do on your own
2. It's not about ppl who can't fix their PCs, it's about people who
3. how are you supposed to know when something is a virus if you are not a total computer geek and the e-mail comes from a friend of yours?
You're not 100% sure what it is? You don't open it. If you're not absolutely sure what you're doing first ask the person who sent it if they did send it and what it is.
The fact is that Xbox 2 could be backwards compatible using emulation. Microsoft already owns VirtualPC, which allows PowerPC architectures to run Microsoft Windows applications. However, the problem is that, although Microsoft owns the DirectX API and the Windows kernel, it doesn?t own the nVidia chips found in the Xbox and since it is changing it graphics partner in favor of ATI, there are almost no chances of an agreement between the two companies being reached. This is more of a business problem rather than a technical issue.
CB: The Movie was released in August 2001. AFAIK the relevant date for an Oscar nomination is the time it was first shown publicly not the year of the US release. Therefore Knockin on Heaven's Door wouldn't have been a possible choice for the Oscars.
SCO:
Mostly Harmless
The real problem are the questions. An astonishing number of people has almost no opinion on most topics and will choose whatever sounds favorable at that instant. (e.g. "Should our heroic president, victor of three wars, be allowed by the rightous people in this country to serve additional four years as president of the United States or do we let the liberal trash win?" versus "Do we let that lying POS usurp the highest office in this country once more or are 4 years of unprecedented unemployment and a new Vietnam enough?")
SCNR, really =), cleaning up kcontrol would be a *very good* idea I'm not arguing with you here. I'd really like to see simple and advanced profiles with all the stuff of the Gnome control center plus some essentials (language selection for example) as standard and a seperate section/a big red button for people who want all the settings.
That said one thing I'd like Gnome to reverse is the decision to abolish the apply/ok button in the settings. That's outright dangerous imho.
Distributions can modify KDE as they want (the *modular* control center comes in handy here =P ) so it isn't overwhelming for newbies.
It's easy to choose defaults and hide functionality for newbies.
That said most newbies I know are more comfortable with KDE than with Gnome because KDE with its default settings is similar to Windows in look and feel.
Red Hat KDE is ridiculous and Bluecurve (I think that's what it's called) was practically maiming KDE. Gnome on SuSE otoh always lacked the polish their KDE had. Similar things can be said for a lot of distributions
And Kcontrol is not monolithic it's nearly 100% modular
Then don't do it. Noone forces you to change everything, the defaults of KDE are at least as sensible as the ones of Gnome (although with a different focus)
AFAIK cdrdao *can't*.
Does anyone know a patch for cdrdao because I'd like to burn without ide-scsi (there has to be some advantage to using 2.6 =) but with k3b (the best app out there).
That said I really don't understand why her story still appear on /. I haven't read even one single article by her that wasn't simply wrong, to incomplete to retain any meaning or biased to the max.
If she says KDE is faster it has to be so unbelievably clear that not even Pravda could deny it =P
If some people believe that something went worse it reasonable to assume that they liked 1.4 better therefore the question was why some liked 1.4 better. =P
The sanctions didn't work
On the contrary.
exploited the oil-for-food (or, as some like to call, the oil-for-palaces) program to pay for rearming
No, he wanted to do it but couldn't because of the sanctions. If he used it for rearming where were the WMDs where were the Scuds?
The Kay report even talks about previously unknown negotiations with North Korea in purchasing weapons materials
Yeah. But they didn't purchase anything. You know why? Because the sanctions worked. Iraq paid but North Korea didn't deliver because they thought Iraq was being watched too closely.
The Bush administration never said Saddam was an imminent threat. In fact, Bush said we couldn't wait until Saddam became an imminent threat
That's fine but I can name at least 3 countries which would have been much better targets (North Korea: nukes, desperate; Pakistan: nukes, nuklear stand-off with India, Islamic revolution waiting to happen; Saudi Arabia: sponsoring terrorists to buy domestic peace but less and less successful as it seems) and many possibilities to do something without a military strike (securing Afghanistan, hadn't the US abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet pull-out we wouldn't have had the Taliban problem at all; support of democratic movements in the mid-east and ex-soviet-republics instead of the dictatorships the US is supporting now; etc)
The whole point was to remove a brutal dictator who starved and butchered his people
With support of a number of equally brutal dictators who starve... e.g. Uzbekistan (sp?)
exploited the oil-for-food program
That's true, but doing so by bombing the country is questionable at best. You can ask the Iraqis whether they're happy that Bush stopped Saddam from exploiting the oil-for-food program.
ignored over a dozen U.N. Resolutions
I don't know actual numbers but I'd think that the worst offenders would be Israel and Turkey (for the Kurds and Cyprus).
used and had WMD
That was the reason for Desert Storm. If you'd watch the news you'd know that the WMDs were nonexistant.
attempted to assassinate a U.S. president
I thought it was an ex-president. But apart from that how many people are you willing to sacrifice so Junior can take revenge for daddy. And with all the political assassinations planned by the US during the Cold War I don't think you're on moral high ground right now.
paid Palestinian suicide bombers
AFAIK he only said he'd do that but never paid
paid for and supported a terrorist training camp (including airplane hijack training)
That's nice but if it's about terrorists Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the border regions of Pakistan would have been more sensible targets.
lied to and deceived U.N. weapons inspectors
Which apparently didn't prevent them from finding the WMDs
Remember North Korea? Remember good-ol' Jimmy Carter going over there and negotiating with them? Yea, "containment" worked with them alright.
That's right *I* remember North Korea, Bush didn't. Otherwise he would have dealt with the country that openly said that it ignored a treaty with the US and developed WMDs, *real* WMDs. Chemical weapons are brutal and all but you can't compare their lethality to even a single nuke
Drowning Afghanistan with troops isn't going to root out bin Laden from his cave anyways
Taliban elements still are in the caves of southern Afghanistan and there are few military tasks so manpower intensive as clearing a mountain range.
Besides, it seems UBL is in Iran right now
Huh? Proof? Evidence? And don't forget after crying wolf once it should better be watertight this time
and was transfered there before the bombing
Which bombing?
You should read RAND: Nation-Building from Germany to Iraq
I quote: "The highest levels of casualties have occurred in the operatio
The question was why some liked 1.4 better than 2 - I just said that the fact that 2 had a totally different goal might have something to do with it. Actually in the case of Epiphany/Galeon it was worse enough that there was a split.
My other point was that if you reduce the number of options choosing the important ones and choosing the right default settings becomes *very* important and I don't agree with them on some decisions.
The main argument why Gnome 1 was better than KDE always was "it's more configurable", "I can change it to behave the way *I* want it to"
Now with Gnome 2 it's suddenly options are bad, simplicity, Joe Average, etc (Actually the last time I tried Gnome Nautilus showed folder contents case sensitive and I didn't find an option to change that - I can't imagine that my mom would want it that way, perhaps I'm blind but imho it's the wrong setting nevertheless). That's a 180 turn in the goals of GNOME and I know a number of people who really believed in the old goals and weren't just part of the anti-KDE crowd who turned away from Gnome because of it.
Read the Kay report. The sanctions worked. Iraq was no immediate danger. Hunting Osama would have made more sense.
Perhaps the Iraq operation wouldn't be such a clusterfuck today if Clinton hadn't cut our military in half.
But it's simply wrong. The problem isn't Clinton cutting the military in half (actually I have no idea what he did with the military) but what Rumsfeld did with the military. The US military proved to be more than adequate at defeating the Iraqi army the problem is that they lack the know how for occupying and administrating the country and Rumsfeld himself reduced the part of the US Army which specializes in that.
With the current army the only way to secure Iraq would be more soldiers but the reason that only 150000 were used wasn't something Clinton did but the all new shiny Rumsfeld doctrine
I only use X11/KDE(/Enlightenment) when explicitly talking about that part of the UI
Soo, IMHO you should have talked about calling it Linux because Sun calls the OS "Java Desktop" while it's actually Linux. Would Sun call their system "Java Linux" then we could start specifying the UI (and in this case GNOME would say more than XFree because there are very few Linux systems not using XFree and the DE actually has a greater impact on the look-and-feel than switching to a different X Server or graphical interface)
All imho and afaik of course =)