3 - It seems you are lacking RAM. Your computer probably doesn't have any swap, and Linux has the habit of go killing processes when there isn't enough memory for them. Linux could quite well include some "last resort swap", that it refuses to use, unless it really needs it. That would make swap work over flash memory, and fix this problem.
4 - Yes, it is missing shortucuts. I don't know if it is just a matter of configuration (like it is on other DEs), or if Android is a bit more hardcore about it.
Ok, let's forget that this is elementary school, where kids learn every kind of stuff that will make them adults, not professionals.
You mean, there won't be a market? Why would that be the case? Computers will be less usefull? People won't have enough money to pay (and computers won't be usefull for the production of basic goods)? Is there a third possibility I'm not aware of?
The GP makes it look like there is some world wide conspiracy to make children dumb. That's not the case, it is just that our society prioritizes other stuff, and most of the smart people aren't teaching kids.
I used pencils to teach algebra to my youger sister when she was trying to learn multiplication (that means, she was a bit older than 6). In the end, as I suspected, those procedures are way easier to grasp using algebra than directly memorizing the producs table.
When I learned that, I used BASIC and discovered a few rules. But I didn't have a full grasp of algebra to help me.
3- multitasking is not really handled, in that the user has no control on what keeps running or not. I need to be able to "sticky" an app.
You just don't close it. I'd agree that there is no standard for closing an app, and that is annoying. But for keep it running, you just switch to another app (or the backgroud) without closing it.
4-... but at least a quick way to alt-tab between active, full-screen apps.
That's what that middle button is for. Press and hold it.
Except for the ones fighting natural events, all the heros are so called because they commited treason. It is only that they betrayed a side that wan't worth it, or one that lost depending on how cinic you are.
Interestingly from a Slashdot point of view they're probably the most high profile example of an "IP" company with a positive image.
The ones that actualy do research, and develop usefull products are normaly seen with a positive image. The ones too small to have everybody know what they do, and the ones that generate "IP" without developing anything usefull normaly have a negative image.
It isn't fair to those too small ones, but tat is how things are.
Android does handle keyboards, I don't know about mouse. It also does multitasking, but in an incovenient way (it is missing shortucuts). Windowing is overated on a 12" netbook screen.
I doubt Android will make a dent on any larger form than a netbook. But ARM isn't restricted to it.
Well, I'd also want its interior to be a completely closed environment. I think the model T has it, but I'm not sure (it's been a long time since I've been to a cars museum).
The economy even was OK before the internet, it is just better now.
There, FTFY. Did you remember how was it to get some new knowledge before the web? Or even how did you choose products, how did you buy important things? Facebook also had a huge impact at the world, it is just that it had a very small impact on the life of lots and lots of people, instead of having a big impact at the life of a small number of people.
Now, about TFA, that drug would pay nothing for ten years, and then it would be HUGE. Much bigger than Facebook. The author is a fool, even if only motivated by money. If one had a drug with high chance of curing cancer, I'm sure there will be plenty of people wanting to invest on it.
If the money available for venture capital is limited, the conclusion follow perfectly from the premisses. It is just missing one conjecture, probably because the submiter didn't think he needed to make it explicit, people would just know it.
Now, we have no actual evidence that the premises are true. We don't know if investing on the next facebook is safer than investing in silicon or hard core computing, and we don't know how limited venture capital is (in fact, it seems venture capital is too big for soft startups nowadays - those just don't need all that money anymore).
Ok, prognostics of Facebook failure are at least preciptated, at worst wrong.
The problem here is that Facebook doesn't have to fail for the stock to lose nearly all its value. It just have to not grow 10 times in a short period. How are the odds of that?
Efficient market theory has one major tennet. Basically that the overall demanded return is directly proportional to the riskiness of an investment.
Even assuming an efficient market, how can economists get into that relation? Shouldn't it be set by supply and demand, so that people's aversion to risk change it? How can it ever be a fixed relation, described by theory?
Ok, we get it, you don't like risky stocks. Nothing wrong with that, but not everybody thinks that way. The point here is that, even for people that like risky stocks, Facebook does not look like a sane bet.
Amazon had a chance to grow. That made it possible to bet on them. It was still risky, but the risk was spreaded on both sides, up and down.
Unless Facebook does some completely unexpected thing (the kind of thing that startups comming from nowhere do, not the kind of things that public traded companies normaly do), it can't grow much more. That makes a bet on them risky, but with nearly all the risk spreaded at the down side.
As far as I know pure DSL modems don't even exist anymore. Every one of them is a NAT router/modem, they only differ at the default config and how hard it is to activate the NAT functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it delete the rights Facebook have your work? Because it doesn't matter if they keep a backup.
Nearly so. You can opt out if you find the checkbox hidden in a dark room in Alpha Centaury behind a warning of beware the leopard.
But they don't force people to actualy use it.
That's great, and news to me. Now it only needs a shortcut to go back to the background, is there some?
3 - It seems you are lacking RAM. Your computer probably doesn't have any swap, and Linux has the habit of go killing processes when there isn't enough memory for them. Linux could quite well include some "last resort swap", that it refuses to use, unless it really needs it. That would make swap work over flash memory, and fix this problem.
4 - Yes, it is missing shortucuts. I don't know if it is just a matter of configuration (like it is on other DEs), or if Android is a bit more hardcore about it.
He can't. He'd certaly need to put another person doing Wikileaks PR, and get completely away from it.
But that is way too much speculative. Had anybody already asked him what he'll do?
Ok, let's forget that this is elementary school, where kids learn every kind of stuff that will make them adults, not professionals.
You mean, there won't be a market? Why would that be the case? Computers will be less usefull? People won't have enough money to pay (and computers won't be usefull for the production of basic goods)? Is there a third possibility I'm not aware of?
I'd mod you up if I had the points.
The GP makes it look like there is some world wide conspiracy to make children dumb. That's not the case, it is just that our society prioritizes other stuff, and most of the smart people aren't teaching kids.
I used pencils to teach algebra to my youger sister when she was trying to learn multiplication (that means, she was a bit older than 6). In the end, as I suspected, those procedures are way easier to grasp using algebra than directly memorizing the producs table.
When I learned that, I used BASIC and discovered a few rules. But I didn't have a full grasp of algebra to help me.
You just don't close it. I'd agree that there is no standard for closing an app, and that is annoying. But for keep it running, you just switch to another app (or the backgroud) without closing it.
That's what that middle button is for. Press and hold it.
Except for the ones fighting natural events, all the heros are so called because they commited treason. It is only that they betrayed a side that wan't worth it, or one that lost depending on how cinic you are.
On mobiles, plenty of people don't want more CPU. Unless that extra CPU comes with no cost on either battery life or weight, what is not the case.
The ones that actualy do research, and develop usefull products are normaly seen with a positive image. The ones too small to have everybody know what they do, and the ones that generate "IP" without developing anything usefull normaly have a negative image.
It isn't fair to those too small ones, but tat is how things are.
Android does handle keyboards, I don't know about mouse. It also does multitasking, but in an incovenient way (it is missing shortucuts). Windowing is overated on a 12" netbook screen.
I doubt Android will make a dent on any larger form than a netbook. But ARM isn't restricted to it.
Twitter doesn't need to know the address of every page you visit just to publish your coments.
Well, I'd also want its interior to be a completely closed environment. I think the model T has it, but I'm not sure (it's been a long time since I've been to a cars museum).
There, FTFY. Did you remember how was it to get some new knowledge before the web? Or even how did you choose products, how did you buy important things? Facebook also had a huge impact at the world, it is just that it had a very small impact on the life of lots and lots of people, instead of having a big impact at the life of a small number of people.
Now, about TFA, that drug would pay nothing for ten years, and then it would be HUGE. Much bigger than Facebook. The author is a fool, even if only motivated by money. If one had a drug with high chance of curing cancer, I'm sure there will be plenty of people wanting to invest on it.
If the money available for venture capital is limited, the conclusion follow perfectly from the premisses. It is just missing one conjecture, probably because the submiter didn't think he needed to make it explicit, people would just know it.
Now, we have no actual evidence that the premises are true. We don't know if investing on the next facebook is safer than investing in silicon or hard core computing, and we don't know how limited venture capital is (in fact, it seems venture capital is too big for soft startups nowadays - those just don't need all that money anymore).
Ok, if the investors are rational (what they aren't), the return will grow at least proportionaly to the chance of losing money.
Ok, prognostics of Facebook failure are at least preciptated, at worst wrong.
The problem here is that Facebook doesn't have to fail for the stock to lose nearly all its value. It just have to not grow 10 times in a short period. How are the odds of that?
An investiment guaranteed to lose your money isn't risky, it's certain.
Even assuming an efficient market, how can economists get into that relation? Shouldn't it be set by supply and demand, so that people's aversion to risk change it? How can it ever be a fixed relation, described by theory?
Ok, we get it, you don't like risky stocks. Nothing wrong with that, but not everybody thinks that way. The point here is that, even for people that like risky stocks, Facebook does not look like a sane bet.
Amazon had a chance to grow. That made it possible to bet on them. It was still risky, but the risk was spreaded on both sides, up and down.
Unless Facebook does some completely unexpected thing (the kind of thing that startups comming from nowhere do, not the kind of things that public traded companies normaly do), it can't grow much more. That makes a bet on them risky, but with nearly all the risk spreaded at the down side.
Zero is way more than losing half of your money.
As far as I know pure DSL modems don't even exist anymore. Every one of them is a NAT router/modem, they only differ at the default config and how hard it is to activate the NAT functionality.