I hate to point out that he already bought his Jeep Liberty, so its purchase cost is irrelevant to costing out this particular trip.
In a way I don't blame the US for not being able to get a good rail system in place. In Canada's capital, Ottawa, City Council has had its thumbs stuck up their collective asses the last ten years trying to get a decent light rail system started. The current proposal won't see the system done until something like 2030!!! And we're a population of less than 1 million, without the urban building up larger US cities. Granted the residents share some of the blame be NIMBYing the process.
I did my part for the environment--I work downtown, but moved to a place along the major bus transit route ("Transitway") and bus to work each day. But outside the Transitway, even the second-tier service is iffy. Bad enough that I decided to get a car in this past summer, and thank all that is holy that I did--the bus driver's union has been on strike since Dec 10. It's merely inconveniencing me, but absolutely crippling the city's less wealthy (can't get to appointments; fired from seasonal work), retailers (already facing recession and bankruptcy and were counting on Xmas sales), charity organizations... and tried disrupting parking at the World Junior Hockey tournament.
All this because a 7.5-9.5% raise over 3 years wasn't enough in these tough economic times, and they want to keep the power to schedule their shifts and make obscene overtime pay.
I thought campaign contributions were considered more valuable than individual votes.
And that's exactly why political campaign contributions coming from anyone other than individual registered voters needs to be outlawed.
This is exactly what the Liberal party did in Canada a few years ago when they were in power: capped the amount that an individual could donate to a political party to just over $1000/year, and outright banned contributions by organizations (e.g. companies, unions, special interest groups, etc).
In return, parties could draw on taxpayer subsidies; the total pool is about $30 million a year, and each party's share is roughly proportional to the popular vote they received in the previous election.
I had only a vague understanding of all this until earlier just a few weeks ago, when the neo-conservatives holding a minority government introduced a motion to eliminate the subsidy under the guise of saving taxpayers the $30 million/year. Long story short, this caused such an uproar that the prime minister had Parliament suspended until late January, rather than face an immediate non-confidence vote that would have toppled his minority government.
It was a brilliant strategy at the time--why should political parties be taxpayer funded, especially in tough economic times? Parties should raise funds privately, just like the Conservatives do! And since the Conservatives got the most votes last time, we stand to lose the most, see what we're sacrificing for you, the taxpayer? Look at the other parties, they can't survive without government handouts!
It was, however, a bullshit gambit to bankrupt the other parties right after a bitter election campaign. And of course the Conservatives stood to gain way more than they'd lose, generally being more aligned with big business interests.
$30 million is a lot to 99% of voters, but a drop in the bucket in a multi-billion budget (and only 10% what the Conservatives wasted by calling an early election). It would be like axing NASA because they spend $15 billion a year, while ignoring that they're a mere 0.6% of the US budget.
If $30 million (less than $2 per Canadian) each year is the price for limiting corporate corruption in politics, I am entirely for keeping it.
You missed the condition of both parent and GP posts: they're setting it up for someone with NO computer experience whatsoever. In other words, they won't be missing what they've never had.
Personally I'd be in favour of changing to all metric, but road signs are the major problem. Changing mph to kph and miles to kilometres across the whole country, then educating everyone about the change would be crazily hard.
Here in America, they tried that during the '70s and some in the '80s but it never caught on.
Just think, trying to change a whole nation like the US when just my state is about the same size as England (not UK). Talk about crazily hard.
The problem with metric in the US isn't population (India and China are both metric), nor geographic size (Canada, Russia, China), or education (when India started metrication, barely 30% of its people could read or write), I'm convinced it's an unconscious determination to be "unique" and NOT conform with the rest of the world. You're caught in a chicken and egg problem--the public doesn't want to change because it's "inconvenient," and politicians won't force the issue because the inconvenience and other costs will bite them in the ass next election.
At the very least you need metric visibly percolating throughout everyday life to help people with the transition. Here in Canada, in the 80s and 90s the weather would still be told in Celsius first, with handy "or x degrees Fahrenheit" tacked on as a reminder. None of the US channels I get report weather in Celsius. Your most well-known scientific publication, National Geographic, still did everything in Imperial units last I saw.
About the only major exception to this were the Star Trek series, which used metric units from The Next Generation onward. As popular as TNG was though, most didn't consciously run into it every day. Neither are microprocessors, measured in nanometers.
Granted, Canada isn't 100% metric either. Grocery ads use pounds since they can show lower unit prices, but the receipt shows the price per kilo. Construction is a major holdout. Screen sizes are in inches.
The blame for Canada's mess goes largely to the Mulroney Conservative government, which nixed the legal requirement to metricate certain things. In the US, I believe the big push for metric came with President Carter, and nixed by Reagan. It doesn't help that Carter is one of the least popular presidents in the US.
I saw a shuttle launch in high-def for the first time last year. I would swear that in some close-up shots prior to launch you could make out individual tiles and just see the serial numbers or that identify where each one goes (couldn't read them of course, but it was obvious they were there).
It's probably just the techy in me, but though I like the fine polish of car, I can certainly appreciate the rougherer construction around raw engineering.
I'm aware of Windows Safari, but there may be subtle differences in browser behaviour, not just rendering.
I didn't think there were any rendering/behaviour differences between Mac and Windows Firefox, for example, but just last week I encountered a web app + Java applet combo that worked on my Mac, but not under Windows. Roughly the same version of Java on both, but I didn't have time to investigate further.
What is the difference between consolidating on Macs and consolidating on a single Linux distribution with a standard package base? It seems that everything you list as a reason to use Macs is available through Linux.
MP = Member of Parliament (in other words, one of the UK's elected representatives in Parliament - much like a Senator in the US)
Late to reply (linked from another/. story), but that's not quite correct.
Though US senators are elected, an MP is more analogous to a US Congressman, in that they draft the legislation and debate it. When it's passed all its readings, in the US it goes to the (elected) Senate. In the UK it would would go to the (unelected) House of Lords.
Canada takes after the UK parliamentary system, except our second house is also called the Senate.
When copyrights become an issue according to the European Court of Human Rights (or similar authorities), like they did for the UK DNA database, then you can claim it's a "moral case."
By the way, when is the government you represent going to get rid of that database? It's a "moral case" after all.
From now on I will describe myself as being from Australia (a small country near New Zealand).
And I shall describe myself as being from The United States, (the big country all you small countries are next to.)
I'll simply settle for describing myself as being from Canada, your even bigger neighbour to the north that everyone in The United States (okay, okay, not Alaskans) have to "look up" to.
In fact, (crosses fingers) I don't think given how the opposition finally grew some gonads and ganged up to toss him out of his chair, he will dare re-introduce a C-61 clone either.
While I'd love to see that happen, the reason they ganged up on him was because he tried axing their tax-funded subsidies. The lack of an economic plan and other motions were merely icing on the cake that sounded better than "we're losing our taxpayer funding."
Mind you, I'm all for keeping the subsidy. It's the most direct way of registering support for a party (about $2 directly to the party you voted for), and allows the limiting of individual donations (and bans donations by organizations entirely), leaving us theoretically free of the legalized bribery seen in US politics.
Of *course* the Conservatives want to get rid of that; being in the pocket of big business, they have the most to gain if they follow up by repealing the donation bans on organizations.
"Oh right, like you need an excuse to watch porn!"
"Canadian porn! Trust me when I tell you their universal health care system doesn't cover breast implants. If I have to sit through one more flat-chested Nova Scotian riding a Mountie on the back of a Zamboni, I'll go OOT of my mind!"
Or, like their headquarters being located at "One Microsoft Way," is this a subtle message about trying to oversee and control everything, since at warp 10 it's "technically occupying all places in the universe at the same time?"
This was all well and good until we had some sort of glitch on a sim under test and the customer's chief pilot managed to land through the runway and the entire cockpit view was filled with something like "Fuck off Dave!"
Management were not pleased!
I trust the developers learned their lesson and are using more politely-worded easter eggs when designing HAL?
As an American going to McGill, you need to understand one thing. Quebec is notorious for having brutal infrastructure, as Quebec seems to prefer to spend their tax money on other things (like suppressing the English language). The roads in Quebec are among the worst in North America. On road trips from NB to Ontario, the first indicator that you were close to home, was the roads became drivable.
Quebec infrastructure is indeed some of the worst I've seen; the contrast between Ottawa (Ontario) and Gatineau/Hull (Quebec) is startling, and they're right across the river from each other.
However, a friend who's lived in Montreal and Gatineau (so she knows just how bad those roads are) drove through Michigan last year, and claims the roads there are even worse!
You could even take it to the extreme of refusing to help a child in distress or render aid if a parent isn't around, because where kids are concerned, law enforcement is totally off the reservation. Something like this incident or a false charge and you could be dragging an arrest record around the rest of your life. It's just not worth the risk. That used to be a paranoid attitude but it doesn't seem so paranoid today.
This has already happened. I can't and don't have more time find the story now, but IIRC in the UK a few years ago, a lone male motorist noticed a little girl wandering alone in the woods. He felt he should stop and make sure she was okay, but was worried that if someone (like her parents) came across the scene they'd get the wrong idea (or worse, the girl would get the wrong idea and run screaming to her parents) and he'd go through exactly what you described, so he went on his way.
Shortly after, the girl fell into a nearby river and drowned.
He felt terrible when the news broke and told his story afterwards, and opinions were fairly evenly divided between disgust at his inaction and agreeing with his line of thinking, which goes to show that by "Think[ing] of the children!" you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I browsed the site quickly but didn't see anywhere that compensation might be discussed on the site itself; maybe I have to sign up (not bothering), or it's done after the site connects driver and passenger.
It seems the only difference between this and traditional carpooling is that driver and passengers might not know each other beforehand, so it's the passenger's responsibility to make sure they're comfortable riding in the car, and (optionally) check that the driver has a license.
But wait, why put it on the passenger's shoulders? How are they to know if the license is valid or if they're a dangerous driver with five demerit points already, or the car isn't safe? Only government regulations and inspectors can do that!
Well, IIRC Craigslist offers a similar listing, and I've seen plenty of these on university bulletin boards too. Is the Transportation board cracking down on those?
No? So what's the big deal about this site? Are they a company that gets a cut of any money the driver makes, like a taxi/bus service does? If not then they are just what they claimed to be--a bulletin board for drivers seeking passengers and vice versa, just on a global scale. That payment might be discussed is irrelevant--that can happen on or off-site.
I'll grant that the Board may just be CYA'ing--it'll take just one incident involving a crash, on a trip arranged through this or similar service, before the lawyers get involved and the "why didn't the government regulate this!?" hysterics start.
Ah yes, that must explain why Apache is doing so terribly in terms of market penetration...
Did I say Apache was doing badly? Hmm, let's see... no, I didn't!
The GP was talking about how some F/OSS products have poorly chosen names. Apache isn't bad at all, but I was pointing out the punny history behind it, and how the Apache developers themselves have tried to get away from it to prevent any chance of mis-perception.
You made my point about Apache. Although it merely meant it was a patchwork of various code, it could be misinterpreted as a mission-critical server that has to be constantly patched.
So, once Apache became a serious alternative to the paid web servers they had to do a little PR spin, and officially denied that the pun was the reason for calling it "Apache." However, the primary Apache developer himself confirmed the "A Patchy" story.
As for the GIMP, the primary user base is probably English, and they in turn may have to pitch it or justify using it to English-speaking, non-techy PHBs. It doesn't bother me personally, but the topic here is product naming, and how it forms perceptions (and pre-conceptions). GIMP came up negative on both when I first told a non-techy co-worker about it. I could've used the "full name" but you know what, the developers decided to use GIMP, why should I bother trying to alter people's first impressions based on the name if the developers don't care.
Don't forget the GIMP. Or the Apache ("a patchy") HTTP server.
Sure, they have clever origins, and that's fine for projects just getting off the ground, but it becomes a PR issue when it starts being used or heard by the mainstream.
In water, with it's higher density, this regime seems to be effective at much lower speeds, so I haven't seen any dimpled submarines, yet.
Since most submarines in the world are the military type, would not a dimpled/scaled hull, which would cause turbulence even while allowing the sub to go faster, defeat the whole purpose of having a sub--to go places undetected?
Its an application like any other that can be killed, move, restarted, or even removed.
Except, of course, for the fact that killing the "root" explorer.exe ends up causing you pretty ugly problems.
For example, when you kill off the explorer.exe process controlling your taskbar and system tray, starting Explorer again usually leaves you with a mess, since the running tasks don't go back into the tray. Then, too, everything that was in the various "autorun" places gets run again because Explorer is too dumb to figure out this isn't the first time it is being run.
Which version of Windows are you using? I'm the first to dump on Windows, but this hasn't been my experience with WinXP at work.
When I kill the explorer.exe process, then relaunch it from the task manager (File > run > explorer.exe), the only tasks that don't re-appear are any open windows I had--makes sense, since I killed their "parent."
I'm not sure what you mean by autorun stuff running again; I have login scripts that launch when I first login, these aren't run again when explorer.exe relaunches. Nor are things in the Startup folder, like Office autorun or the resident antivirus scanner. Believe me, I'd notice if all of these ran again--it takes almost 3 minutes after first login before my stupid machine is responsive enough to actually use.
I've done this kill-relaunch many times across several WinXP PCs, and they've all behaved the same way. Are you relaunching explorer the same way?
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to point out that he already bought his Jeep Liberty, so its purchase cost is irrelevant to costing out this particular trip.
In a way I don't blame the US for not being able to get a good rail system in place. In Canada's capital, Ottawa, City Council has had its thumbs stuck up their collective asses the last ten years trying to get a decent light rail system started. The current proposal won't see the system done until something like 2030!!! And we're a population of less than 1 million, without the urban building up larger US cities. Granted the residents share some of the blame be NIMBYing the process.
I did my part for the environment--I work downtown, but moved to a place along the major bus transit route ("Transitway") and bus to work each day. But outside the Transitway, even the second-tier service is iffy. Bad enough that I decided to get a car in this past summer, and thank all that is holy that I did--the bus driver's union has been on strike since Dec 10. It's merely inconveniencing me, but absolutely crippling the city's less wealthy (can't get to appointments; fired from seasonal work), retailers (already facing recession and bankruptcy and were counting on Xmas sales), charity organizations... and tried disrupting parking at the World Junior Hockey tournament.
All this because a 7.5-9.5% raise over 3 years wasn't enough in these tough economic times, and they want to keep the power to schedule their shifts and make obscene overtime pay.
Seeing as how they are making said cars on our soil, we just kick them out and re-purpose the plants to make stuff.
Since China doesn't make any cars bought by US consumers, I wasn't sure what the OP's point was.
It's Japanese and maybe South Korean companies that have plants in the US, how likely is a war with them?
I thought campaign contributions were considered more valuable than individual votes.
And that's exactly why political campaign contributions coming from anyone other than individual registered voters needs to be outlawed.
This is exactly what the Liberal party did in Canada a few years ago when they were in power: capped the amount that an individual could donate to a political party to just over $1000/year, and outright banned contributions by organizations (e.g. companies, unions, special interest groups, etc).
In return, parties could draw on taxpayer subsidies; the total pool is about $30 million a year, and each party's share is roughly proportional to the popular vote they received in the previous election.
I had only a vague understanding of all this until earlier just a few weeks ago, when the neo-conservatives holding a minority government introduced a motion to eliminate the subsidy under the guise of saving taxpayers the $30 million/year. Long story short, this caused such an uproar that the prime minister had Parliament suspended until late January, rather than face an immediate non-confidence vote that would have toppled his minority government.
It was a brilliant strategy at the time--why should political parties be taxpayer funded, especially in tough economic times? Parties should raise funds privately, just like the Conservatives do! And since the Conservatives got the most votes last time, we stand to lose the most, see what we're sacrificing for you, the taxpayer? Look at the other parties, they can't survive without government handouts!
It was, however, a bullshit gambit to bankrupt the other parties right after a bitter election campaign. And of course the Conservatives stood to gain way more than they'd lose, generally being more aligned with big business interests.
$30 million is a lot to 99% of voters, but a drop in the bucket in a multi-billion budget (and only 10% what the Conservatives wasted by calling an early election). It would be like axing NASA because they spend $15 billion a year, while ignoring that they're a mere 0.6% of the US budget.
If $30 million (less than $2 per Canadian) each year is the price for limiting corporate corruption in politics, I am entirely for keeping it.
This is the year of the Windows desktop!
Sweet!
Unfortunately, laptops are now outselling desktops.
When will be the year of Windows on the laptop?
You missed the condition of both parent and GP posts: they're setting it up for someone with NO computer experience whatsoever. In other words, they won't be missing what they've never had.
Personally I'd be in favour of changing to all metric, but road signs are the major problem. Changing mph to kph and miles to kilometres across the whole country, then educating everyone about the change would be crazily hard.
Here in America, they tried that during the '70s and some in the '80s but it never caught on.
Just think, trying to change a whole nation like the US when just my state is about the same size as England (not UK). Talk about crazily hard.
Here's an interesting history of metrication in countries around the world:
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm
The problem with metric in the US isn't population (India and China are both metric), nor geographic size (Canada, Russia, China), or education (when India started metrication, barely 30% of its people could read or write), I'm convinced it's an unconscious determination to be "unique" and NOT conform with the rest of the world. You're caught in a chicken and egg problem--the public doesn't want to change because it's "inconvenient," and politicians won't force the issue because the inconvenience and other costs will bite them in the ass next election.
At the very least you need metric visibly percolating throughout everyday life to help people with the transition. Here in Canada, in the 80s and 90s the weather would still be told in Celsius first, with handy "or x degrees Fahrenheit" tacked on as a reminder. None of the US channels I get report weather in Celsius. Your most well-known scientific publication, National Geographic, still did everything in Imperial units last I saw.
About the only major exception to this were the Star Trek series, which used metric units from The Next Generation onward. As popular as TNG was though, most didn't consciously run into it every day. Neither are microprocessors, measured in nanometers.
Granted, Canada isn't 100% metric either. Grocery ads use pounds since they can show lower unit prices, but the receipt shows the price per kilo. Construction is a major holdout. Screen sizes are in inches.
The blame for Canada's mess goes largely to the Mulroney Conservative government, which nixed the legal requirement to metricate certain things. In the US, I believe the big push for metric came with President Carter, and nixed by Reagan. It doesn't help that Carter is one of the least popular presidents in the US.
I saw a shuttle launch in high-def for the first time last year. I would swear that in some close-up shots prior to launch you could make out individual tiles and just see the serial numbers or that identify where each one goes (couldn't read them of course, but it was obvious they were there).
It's probably just the techy in me, but though I like the fine polish of car, I can certainly appreciate the rougherer construction around raw engineering.
I'm aware of Windows Safari, but there may be subtle differences in browser behaviour, not just rendering.
I didn't think there were any rendering/behaviour differences between Mac and Windows Firefox, for example, but just last week I encountered a web app + Java applet combo that worked on my Mac, but not under Windows. Roughly the same version of Java on both, but I didn't have time to investigate further.
What is the difference between consolidating on Macs and consolidating on a single Linux distribution with a standard package base? It seems that everything you list as a reason to use Macs is available through Linux.
Except testing under Mac Safari.
MP = Member of Parliament (in other words, one of the UK's elected representatives in Parliament - much like a Senator in the US)
Late to reply (linked from another /. story), but that's not quite correct.
Though US senators are elected, an MP is more analogous to a US Congressman, in that they draft the legislation and debate it. When it's passed all its readings, in the US it goes to the (elected) Senate. In the UK it would would go to the (unelected) House of Lords.
Canada takes after the UK parliamentary system, except our second house is also called the Senate.
Hey Andy,
When copyrights become an issue according to the European Court of Human Rights (or similar authorities), like they did for the UK DNA database, then you can claim it's a "moral case."
By the way, when is the government you represent going to get rid of that database? It's a "moral case" after all.
From now on I will describe myself as being from Australia (a small country near New Zealand).
And I shall describe myself as being from The United States, (the big country all you small countries are next to.)
I'll simply settle for describing myself as being from Canada, your even bigger neighbour to the north that everyone in The United States (okay, okay, not Alaskans) have to "look up" to.
In fact, (crosses fingers) I don't think given how the opposition finally grew some gonads and ganged up to toss him out of his chair, he will dare re-introduce a C-61 clone either.
While I'd love to see that happen, the reason they ganged up on him was because he tried axing their tax-funded subsidies. The lack of an economic plan and other motions were merely icing on the cake that sounded better than "we're losing our taxpayer funding."
Mind you, I'm all for keeping the subsidy. It's the most direct way of registering support for a party (about $2 directly to the party you voted for), and allows the limiting of individual donations (and bans donations by organizations entirely), leaving us theoretically free of the legalized bribery seen in US politics.
Of *course* the Conservatives want to get rid of that; being in the pocket of big business, they have the most to gain if they follow up by repealing the donation bans on organizations.
Never thought I'd be able to quote this on /....
"Oh right, like you need an excuse to watch porn!"
"Canadian porn! Trust me when I tell you their universal health care system doesn't cover breast implants. If I have to sit through one more flat-chested Nova Scotian riding a Mountie on the back of a Zamboni, I'll go OOT of my mind!"
Microsoft has introduced a 'fully conformant software rasterizer' called WARP (Windows Advanced Rasterization Platform) 10
Sheesh, trust Microsoft to forget that Warp 10 is impossible to achieve.
Or, like their headquarters being located at "One Microsoft Way," is this a subtle message about trying to oversee and control everything, since at warp 10 it's "technically occupying all places in the universe at the same time?"
This was all well and good until we had some sort of glitch on a sim under test and the customer's chief pilot managed to land through the runway and the entire cockpit view was filled with something like "Fuck off Dave!"
Management were not pleased!
I trust the developers learned their lesson and are using more politely-worded easter eggs when designing HAL?
As an American going to McGill, you need to understand one thing. Quebec is notorious for having brutal infrastructure, as Quebec seems to prefer to spend their tax money on other things (like suppressing the English language). The roads in Quebec are among the worst in North America. On road trips from NB to Ontario, the first indicator that you were close to home, was the roads became drivable.
Quebec infrastructure is indeed some of the worst I've seen; the contrast between Ottawa (Ontario) and Gatineau/Hull (Quebec) is startling, and they're right across the river from each other.
However, a friend who's lived in Montreal and Gatineau (so she knows just how bad those roads are) drove through Michigan last year, and claims the roads there are even worse!
You could even take it to the extreme of refusing to help a child in distress or render aid if a parent isn't around, because where kids are concerned, law enforcement is totally off the reservation. Something like this incident or a false charge and you could be dragging an arrest record around the rest of your life. It's just not worth the risk. That used to be a paranoid attitude but it doesn't seem so paranoid today.
This has already happened. I can't and don't have more time find the story now, but IIRC in the UK a few years ago, a lone male motorist noticed a little girl wandering alone in the woods. He felt he should stop and make sure she was okay, but was worried that if someone (like her parents) came across the scene they'd get the wrong idea (or worse, the girl would get the wrong idea and run screaming to her parents) and he'd go through exactly what you described, so he went on his way.
Shortly after, the girl fell into a nearby river and drowned.
He felt terrible when the news broke and told his story afterwards, and opinions were fairly evenly divided between disgust at his inaction and agreeing with his line of thinking, which goes to show that by "Think[ing] of the children!" you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I browsed the site quickly but didn't see anywhere that compensation might be discussed on the site itself; maybe I have to sign up (not bothering), or it's done after the site connects driver and passenger.
It seems the only difference between this and traditional carpooling is that driver and passengers might not know each other beforehand, so it's the passenger's responsibility to make sure they're comfortable riding in the car, and (optionally) check that the driver has a license.
But wait, why put it on the passenger's shoulders? How are they to know if the license is valid or if they're a dangerous driver with five demerit points already, or the car isn't safe? Only government regulations and inspectors can do that!
Well, IIRC Craigslist offers a similar listing, and I've seen plenty of these on university bulletin boards too. Is the Transportation board cracking down on those?
No? So what's the big deal about this site? Are they a company that gets a cut of any money the driver makes, like a taxi/bus service does? If not then they are just what they claimed to be--a bulletin board for drivers seeking passengers and vice versa, just on a global scale. That payment might be discussed is irrelevant--that can happen on or off-site.
I'll grant that the Board may just be CYA'ing--it'll take just one incident involving a crash, on a trip arranged through this or similar service, before the lawyers get involved and the "why didn't the government regulate this!?" hysterics start.
Ah yes, that must explain why Apache is doing so terribly in terms of market penetration...
Did I say Apache was doing badly? Hmm, let's see... no, I didn't!
The GP was talking about how some F/OSS products have poorly chosen names. Apache isn't bad at all, but I was pointing out the punny history behind it, and how the Apache developers themselves have tried to get away from it to prevent any chance of mis-perception.
You made my point about Apache. Although it merely meant it was a patchwork of various code, it could be misinterpreted as a mission-critical server that has to be constantly patched.
So, once Apache became a serious alternative to the paid web servers they had to do a little PR spin, and officially denied that the pun was the reason for calling it "Apache." However, the primary Apache developer himself confirmed the "A Patchy" story.
As for the GIMP, the primary user base is probably English, and they in turn may have to pitch it or justify using it to English-speaking, non-techy PHBs. It doesn't bother me personally, but the topic here is product naming, and how it forms perceptions (and pre-conceptions). GIMP came up negative on both when I first told a non-techy co-worker about it. I could've used the "full name" but you know what, the developers decided to use GIMP, why should I bother trying to alter people's first impressions based on the name if the developers don't care.
I'm afraid the answer to that question is one of those that gets black helicopters flying over your house ;)
Don't worry, I'm in Canada, we can't afford black helicopters ;-)
Don't forget the GIMP. Or the Apache ("a patchy") HTTP server.
Sure, they have clever origins, and that's fine for projects just getting off the ground, but it becomes a PR issue when it starts being used or heard by the mainstream.
In water, with it's higher density, this regime seems to be effective at much lower speeds, so I haven't seen any dimpled submarines, yet.
Since most submarines in the world are the military type, would not a dimpled/scaled hull, which would cause turbulence even while allowing the sub to go faster, defeat the whole purpose of having a sub--to go places undetected?
Its an application like any other that can be killed, move, restarted, or even removed.
Except, of course, for the fact that killing the "root" explorer.exe ends up causing you pretty ugly problems.
For example, when you kill off the explorer.exe process controlling your taskbar and system tray, starting Explorer again usually leaves you with a mess, since the running tasks don't go back into the tray. Then, too, everything that was in the various "autorun" places gets run again because Explorer is too dumb to figure out this isn't the first time it is being run.
Which version of Windows are you using? I'm the first to dump on Windows, but this hasn't been my experience with WinXP at work.
When I kill the explorer.exe process, then relaunch it from the task manager (File > run > explorer.exe), the only tasks that don't re-appear are any open windows I had--makes sense, since I killed their "parent."
I'm not sure what you mean by autorun stuff running again; I have login scripts that launch when I first login, these aren't run again when explorer.exe relaunches. Nor are things in the Startup folder, like Office autorun or the resident antivirus scanner. Believe me, I'd notice if all of these ran again--it takes almost 3 minutes after first login before my stupid machine is responsive enough to actually use.
I've done this kill-relaunch many times across several WinXP PCs, and they've all behaved the same way. Are you relaunching explorer the same way?