First? Gnome is at version 3.2 and maximizing a window on my netbook without theme hackery to remove the title bar is a huge waste of space. Unity is the one that optimized for small screens first, Gnome 3 is just catching up in that area.
Just look at all the work with Cinnamon and MATE to have what we already had but lost without much reason. With Gnome 4 they probably will remove the terminal.
Cinnamon choose to work with the newer platform that never had what you claimed was lost. MATE is merely a fork, whatever work they had to keep the exact same things we had and never lost would have needed to be done anyways. But please, elaborate on how Gnome 3 destroyed the codebase for Gnome 2 and wiped all mirrors.
You are fine with FORCING other people to implement two paradigms in parallel though? The old ones were "forced" on you just as much, but hey, you are used to them so every major DE should maintain a Windows 95 emulator for the next 60 years?
If you tell Gnome to open a new window it will. You are telling it that you want a Terminal, it gives you one. There is a disagreement, but postulating that Gnome 3 should work just like Gnome 2 is not a valid resolution.
Real world tools are generally single purpose and don't accomplish huge portions of the task at hand, or even the whole task. Where they do you don't have a pile of tools, that's closer to a desktop. But that's not the entire story.
As you said yourself, you don't allocate a rectangular area and keep all your stuff in it. Thing is, with a computer you have no choice but to, it's called a monitor. In the real world you will have tools scattered around the area you actually perform your work in and bring them in when you use them (on the computer this is accomplished via window management). You wouldn't leave your whisk in the bowl while folding, would you? Gnome Shell actually mimics this separation between doing the task and rummaging around for tools outside of the primary work area rather well.
No, it was supposed to demonstrate AC's complete lack of contextual awareness. Article, summary and subject of sub thread all reference voice search to which the voice control aspects of Siri are irrelevant.
Why did the goalpost suddenly go to everybody? It's true for me. It's why I don't want to be tracked. I do not get the wonderful personalized, relative ads, merely compromised privacy. I've clicked on ~10 ads, all sponsored posts on reddit, last year out of curiosity, none of them were targeted and I didn't convert to a sale on any of them.
For everybody else you're guess is as pointless as mine, so why try to elicit an answer you will just shoot down? Outside of independent (advertising companies will obviously tell you it works) studies you might as well not bother speculating.
First one's not search. Second one will be answered by Google maps. Third one is not a search. So you got one search query and two device commands. Try: "Siri, what is a search query?". Maybe you can learn something useful.
Yes, if you really know the science behind it you can sometimes learn things, but most of the time the central ideas are heavily obfuscated.
In your example it's more of a land grab. To make sure that if someone discovers that 3.1% choclate stired manually also cures choclate they are still fucked because you got the idea first., you get your royalties since
Software doesn't deal with electrical signals. Some particular hardware might be implemented using such, but it's not what software deals with. Software deals with abstracts.
Also its worth pointing out that popular idea the Christian powers started it is wrong, Islam had been spread to those areas mostly by force years before, if anything the Crusades were a counter attack.
It's true, one of the requirements for ISO compatible PDFs is for them to target A4. Whatever was Adobe thinking designing such a restricted file format!
He explained exactly how this is designed to combat competition. It's only "free" inasmuch as it promotes iPad sales, it's not available for any other purpose.
Very much doubt most of it was supposed to be standardized, but if you have some proof I look forwards to being wrong on that (even better if that 25% wasn't just made up!). Proprietary extensions however aren't a problem as long is it's understood that that's what they are and web developers are aware enough not to rely on them. Currently some things are supported across all new browsers (e.g. canvas, fonts) and a bunch more can made to work in one way on half of them and in another on the other half (e.g. video and audio). It's work, it might break in the future, but it's worlds ahead of single browser solutions we used to see.
Slashdot Mirror
First? Gnome is at version 3.2 and maximizing a window on my netbook without theme hackery to remove the title bar is a huge waste of space. Unity is the one that optimized for small screens first, Gnome 3 is just catching up in that area.
Cinnamon choose to work with the newer platform that never had what you claimed was lost. MATE is merely a fork, whatever work they had to keep the exact same things we had and never lost would have needed to be done anyways. But please, elaborate on how Gnome 3 destroyed the codebase for Gnome 2 and wiped all mirrors.
I don't see anything in TFA about making maximized windows the only option.
You are fine with FORCING other people to implement two paradigms in parallel though? The old ones were "forced" on you just as much, but hey, you are used to them so every major DE should maintain a Windows 95 emulator for the next 60 years?
I'm not a Gnome developer. I do consider Gnome 3 to be the most streamlined (that's the part people consider dumbed down) DE to date though.
If you tell Gnome to open a new window it will. You are telling it that you want a Terminal, it gives you one. There is a disagreement, but postulating that Gnome 3 should work just like Gnome 2 is not a valid resolution.
Real world tools are generally single purpose and don't accomplish huge portions of the task at hand, or even the whole task. Where they do you don't have a pile of tools, that's closer to a desktop. But that's not the entire story.
As you said yourself, you don't allocate a rectangular area and keep all your stuff in it. Thing is, with a computer you have no choice but to, it's called a monitor. In the real world you will have tools scattered around the area you actually perform your work in and bring them in when you use them (on the computer this is accomplished via window management). You wouldn't leave your whisk in the bowl while folding, would you? Gnome Shell actually mimics this separation between doing the task and rummaging around for tools outside of the primary work area rather well.
It means that people are likely to jump of the Empire State Building, yes.
No, it was supposed to demonstrate AC's complete lack of contextual awareness. Article, summary and subject of sub thread all reference voice search to which the voice control aspects of Siri are irrelevant.
In this case it's downright amusing. They are an electronics manufacturer now!
Why did the goalpost suddenly go to everybody? It's true for me. It's why I don't want to be tracked. I do not get the wonderful personalized, relative ads, merely compromised privacy. I've clicked on ~10 ads, all sponsored posts on reddit, last year out of curiosity, none of them were targeted and I didn't convert to a sale on any of them.
For everybody else you're guess is as pointless as mine, so why try to elicit an answer you will just shoot down? Outside of independent (advertising companies will obviously tell you it works) studies you might as well not bother speculating.
It's as true as the well worn "you are the product". There is some truth to it, but it's dressed in hyperbole.
First one's not search. Second one will be answered by Google maps. Third one is not a search. So you got one search query and two device commands. Try: "Siri, what is a search query?". Maybe you can learn something useful.
Same amount as on the net. Zero. I don't need to be tracked, I've been ad blind for a long time now.
In your example it's more of a land grab. To make sure that if someone discovers that 3.1% choclate stired manually also cures choclate they are still fucked because you got the idea first., you get your royalties since
Software doesn't deal with electrical signals. Some particular hardware might be implemented using such, but it's not what software deals with. Software deals with abstracts.
Ding, ding, ding. We have yet another person who doesn't understand that analogies are not eqalities.
Northern Crusades.
Limited liability is a two edged sword. Don't want to pay tax on money another legal entity was also taxed on? Sole proprietorship is that way.
You are not convinced (though there is credible evidence but it might not meat your threshold)? Try a risk management approach to the issue then.
Who wouldn't want to return to the good old days of crash free Windows 95 apps!
It's true, one of the requirements for ISO compatible PDFs is for them to target A4. Whatever was Adobe thinking designing such a restricted file format!
What does intelligent design indicate about the current state of the field? If you have a point make it, instead of asking leading questions.
He explained exactly how this is designed to combat competition. It's only "free" inasmuch as it promotes iPad sales, it's not available for any other purpose.
Very much doubt most of it was supposed to be standardized, but if you have some proof I look forwards to being wrong on that (even better if that 25% wasn't just made up!). Proprietary extensions however aren't a problem as long is it's understood that that's what they are and web developers are aware enough not to rely on them. Currently some things are supported across all new browsers (e.g. canvas, fonts) and a bunch more can made to work in one way on half of them and in another on the other half (e.g. video and audio). It's work, it might break in the future, but it's worlds ahead of single browser solutions we used to see.