As many have pointed out, one of the most fundamental benefits of dual display setups is having input/editors on one screen and output/viewers on the other without having to do any switching of any sort. No window manager however good it may be can do this.
This one might. (Disclaimer: I haven't bothered to actually learn this, but it seems like it's exactly what you're looking for, if limited to a single screen.)
I tend to do that by hand. Often this looks like a web browser in the upper right of the screen, three terminals down the left hand side, one under the browser, and Gaim in the lower right. Now I don't even need to do virtual desktops unless I also want something else, like email. Bonus: Unlike dual monitors, I don't even have to turn my head to go from documentation/output to terminal/editor/input.
Going back to single-display (below QWUXGA resolution) after so many years of dual would be something like a 50% handicap for me now.
I hear you -- occasionally, I have to use a display at 1024x768 or some such, or a window manager (OS?) without virtual desktops, and I feel crippled. My main work machine now is 1600x1200, which means it's trivial to open six 80x24 terminals, neatly tiled in a 2x3 grid, and have room to spare.
But again, the need for a separate physical monitor is more one of price than anything else. Worst case, you could get a ginormous, say, Apple Cinema display, and hack your OS to think it's two monitors (so stuff will automatically maximize to only half the screen). The reason people don't do that is the dual monitors are cheaper than one bigger monitor. Just stressing the point that ultimately, it's about physical space and virtual space, not about actual number of physical monitors.
You can't compare two full sized windows with them
Yes, you can.
First, you can, in fact, use both. I've seen people who love to work that way.
Second, I'm not sure I get why "full sized" == a single screen. I suppose that's -- again -- the domain of the window manager. If your "maximize" button is your only way of making a window automatically big, and it always maximizes to exactly one physical screen, then sure. I don't mind placing things by hand, though -- web browser surrounded by four or five terminal windows, for example, and I don't even have to turn my head -- and there are all kinds of window managers, several of which completely take away that manual work. And also, I've seen entirely too many setups where "maximize" is broken and will maximize the window across both screens.
That is the job of the window manager, not the OS. Many window managers tile windows very well.
To have two windows properly tiled on a single monitor, you need to minimize everything but those windows
Or just grab another virtual desktop. Now all your "minimized" stuff can stay open somewhere else.
Oh wait, you have to do this with Windows? I guess you could use nVidia's virtual desktops, but now I see why... dual monitors make a lot of sense when your OS / Window Manager sucks that much.
Removing execute permission from a directory does not do what you think it does. As far as I can tell, it effectively removes read permission. Maybe it does something different on Windows?
I am sure you mean removing execute permissions from the file itself. In that case, you would have to mount their entire home directory (has to be a home partition now) 'noexec', which would probably break some things, and still wouldn't work -- scripts do not need execute permissions, and they still have things like login scripts (.bashrc,.xinitrc, etc). So, just create a file called '.spyware.sh', and add a line 'bash ~/.spyware.sh' (or 'perl ~/.spyware.pl') to your.bashrc.
You could just remove interpreters, or hide them from your users -- thus making your system more and more unusable to them. I suppose you could hack all the interpreters to only work when a file has execute permissions, but as far as I know (haven't tried), noexec-mounted partitions simply don't let you execute things, they don't actually change the apparent permissions of those files. Meaning you now break any script that doesn't have a shebang (#!) at the beginning...
Anyway, while technically possible, it's really a lot more effort than "not running as local admin". The real solution would be to have a secure web browser in the first place.
Better yet, the game features the visuals of the Gamecube version and all the bonus content of the PS2 version.
At first glance, that would seem to be backwards, as the PS2 had much better graphics than the Gamecube. So, did Gamecube Resident Evil 4 actually look better than the PS2 version, or is this a typo of some sort? Or worse, are they intending the Wii version to look worse than the PS2 version?
what kind of internship do you give to a 19 year old girl with a 3rd grade writing level, no interest the sciences, business, arts, or anything else
Whatever she is supposed to be able to do. If she was in a computer science course and you suspect she copied someone's program, make her write a program for you. Just give her the specs and a computer, and let her figure it out -- if she can't, she's out. Bonus is this shouldn't really take much of your time, other than having to wait longer for that particular program -- you gave it to her, she didn't make it, so you pass it on to someone else.
Actually, I don't really know. If she's supposed to be there for her writing skill, have her write a short story or something.
I wouldn't necessarily call these internships. What I do call it is education, but with a more real-world environment, stepping up to a real job eventually, maybe. In this environment, she can no longer convince herself that she can breeze through college and then do some more fun, exciting job. It's no longer about the grade, it's about survival -- if she doesn't do the work, she's fired. She can't plagiarize because it's real, actual work, and she can't simply buy the work, because it would be too easy for whoever's selling to simply cut out the middleman and take her job -- unless she pays him more, and if she keeps that up, short of prostitution, you wonder where she gets the money from and why she doesn't just forget the whole thing and retire...
Internships only work for MOTIVATED students
Hence the suggestion to use them to filter out unmotivated students.
Anyone who managed to make it to college in the first place, and is motivated, is probably capable of getting something out of it. Maybe not what they wanted, but something. (Of course, this sounds like hypocritical bullshit even to me, because I was not motivated, flunked out...)
The trick (to continue a rant) is to somehow have an internship in which the intern is at least close to free. Maybe they pay you to be there, as part of their college education, and that should pay for your time, assuming they accomplish nothing. As soon as they start to accomplish stuff, you give them promotions (they pay you less, you expect more). If a student does well, they eventually get promoted into a real job (you pay them, you expect even more), or get "fired" (at the very least, a failing grade).
I gave it a week myself, then went back to gentoo (vroom vroom, watch this ricer go..)
And I was a loyal Gentoo user, until I realized life is too short to wait for stuff to compile, and to watch standard stuff fail in new and interesting ways and remain unfixed for weeks...
The good news is, Gentoo is easier for me to fix personally when it breaks. The bad news is, this is because I've used Gentoo for a LONG time, and continue to have to fix something every other week -- not frequently enough to force me to switch my few remaining Gentoo boxes over, but bad enough that I don't recommend Gentoo to anyone.
A couple jobs ago, I was required to learn Debian. Ubuntu is Debian, only with more stuff working (and working well) out of the box. And yes, I do still customize the hell out of it -- just not in the same way. Rather than tweaking USE flags and CFLAGS and adding overlays via layman, I now add repositories, simply pick packages (instead of messing with USE flags), but I do still have custom kernels in a few places -- as easy, or easier, to do than on Gentoo.
I haven't found one that willingly uses Linux yet
Of those who have given it enough of a chance? I've found people (parents, relatives, etc) who don't mind using it at all, until they run into something they need that it doesn't have. I imagine there's a fairly sizable portion of the population that is not in a similar situation, given that these things they need are often specific programs (Outlook) that many people don't depend on (Gmail).
I'd still recommend a Mac to those who I can't be available for, because if a Mac should break, it's probably easier to get support. But Ubuntu is less likely to break once it works, and I can probably fix it faster if I'm around.
Said companies didn't enter in a contract with MS to guaranty 100% compatibility for their MAPI enabled apps.
Which they should not have to, as MAPI is (supposedly) an open standard.
MS' doing what they can to keep backwards compability. That's the only guaranty MS can give.
It's spelled "guarantee". And that would be great, if they were trying to do that -- instead of deliberately trying to break the competition in subtle ways.
They have done this before. Take msn.com, which had a ridiculous typo in its stylesheet -- in a version of the stylesheet only shown to Opera users.
Coincidence? Maybe, but consider that this never, EVER happens the other way around -- that is, msn.com never has typos that break stuff in Internet Explorer, and their own API changes never break a Microsoft product.
Even if MS have access to a few undocumented MAPI calls, it's still their right to have those undocumented.
No, it is not. It is blatantly anticompetitive behavior. Using their complete dominance in the Operating System business to support their Email Client business -- or even their Office Suite business -- is not just unfair, it's actually illegal.
MS doesn't owe me, you nor anyone else nothing.
You don't have a clue about antitrust laws, then.
Maybe it's different in Britain, but here, this kind of shit is considered illegal and wrong -- except, I suppose, for those who have contributed a large amount of money to political campaigns. (Notice how the antitrust suit against MS was dropped as soon as Bush got elected -- and notice how much MS (and MS executives) contributed to the Bush 2000 campaign.)
But there is no way that a person can increase their writing by 10 grade levels in 3 weeks.
And if you're wrong, and there is, they should not be punished for it.
Like I said, it's not hard to figure out anyway. Ask them a few questions, you'll find out very quickly whether they are capable of writing that paper. If, as a teacher (professor, etc), you don't have time for that, you've got too many students.
Despite what students seem to believe, my aunt's (and most lecturers') goal is to teach, not punish
Not true of all of them, but yes, most teachers I've seen are there by choice, and genuinely do want to teach.
How often does someone suddenly develop a stuttering problem 15 weeks into a semester?
How close have you been paying attention to this person? Maybe it's sheer nervousness at being accused of cheating?
I don't think she was capable of the level of reading skill required for plagarism:)
In which case, you really have nothing to worry about. That should be obvious in less than ten minutes of face time.
But yes, I am saying "don't assume anything". I've seen some fairly strange things here -- in high school, there was a kid who had a speaking disorder, because he'd had a hearing disorder. It took awhile to figure that out -- at first, they just thought he was stupid, when he really just couldn't hear. Once he got the hearing aids, the speaking problem never went away, and by 10th grade or so, it was obvious that he was capable of most of what the rest of us did, but it also seemed obvious he was getting plenty of help from his parents.
In this circumstance, at first glance, he just seemed retarded -- like maybe he actually did have Down's or something. At second glance, it seemed like he was consistently underestimated. It took awhile to figure out the third piece -- he's an underachiever, because no one expects him to do much, because they think he's stupid and end up helping him... At least one presentation seemed pretty obviously done with a lot of help from his parents. But again, you had to know him.
I suspect the teachers knew, but then, it was a private school, and his dad was in some sort of important position on the campus that this school (a K-12 thing) was a part of.
I wonder if it isn't time to give up on the whole "giving grades" thing and let real internships filter them out. It's a lot harder to fake your way through life than it is to fake your way through school.
Well stop whining, Linux isn't ready for the the mainstream desktop. It needs to standardise.
Windows isn't, either. How many different versions of Vista are there? And that's just Vista.
Look, if you have a real complaint about "Linux", either direct it at the kernel (and know what you're talking about) or direct it at a specific distro.
Otherwise, stop whining that you have *gasp* too much choice! If you really feel that way, get a Mac -- that way, you won't even be burdened with choice in hardware.
And if you think it's not about you, then stop whining, period. Get an actual, typical desktop user who has gone back to Windows to complain about why Linux sucks, or bring us real complaints that affect you.
The notion that we share over 60% or our DNA with a banana sounds suspicious; I think that it is just another "fact" made-up to support creationism.
Except I don't support creationism (I'm even willing to go up against Chuck Norris on that point), and this would tend to support evolution anyway. But I suppose I can do your Googling for you.
Yes, that excludes people in a coma, as long as they stay in the coma
And here begin the political flamewars. A person in a coma could come back to life at any time, really -- how do we differentiate between that and a person who's simply passed out? Is it legal to kill someone if I get them fall-down drunk first?
I like it, it's a good start, but we need this to not only make sense, but be unambiguous enough to build laws around.
DNA is pretty bad for that, actually. The genetic difference between humans and big hairy ape-things is pretty small. I've seen 90-odd percent DNA similarity statistics quoted.
Yet they are still a different species. There's actually a simple definition there -- you cannot reproduce with a chimp. I imagine you could also figure this out by looking at DNA.
And let me put it another way: The difference between, say, kernel.dll and kernel_rootkitted.dll may not be much in terms of bytes used, but it's significant. The difference between backup.tar.bz2 and backup_corrupted.tar.bz2 is similarly huge -- even a couple of bad sectors there will pretty much destroy your backup.
When you start to have chimeras and cell cultures, then you need additional measures, but just as we can tell your DNA from JohnTheRapist's DNA (found at a crime scene), it seems rather unlikely that anyone would be unable to tell the difference between chimp DNA and human DNA.
There was a fairly long period in my life where I read and wrote words that I never spoke, so I never learned the pronunciations.
Yet, if asked to define them, you probably could. I had no idea you could pronounce mysql "My Sequel", but if you asked me what it was, I knew it was a relational database. If you asked me that question today, I could even tell you what a relational database is, and what SQL is.
But knowing how to pronounce it is kind of a first step -- and I've seen classmates squint at their paper and wonder not just how to pronounce a word, but what the word was in the first place. You can also tell, listening to them read, that they did not expect the sentence structure to go that way...
Does someone with Down syndrome have no human rights? Fewer?
Yes, fewer. I hate to say it, but if we give them fewer responsibilities, they get fewer rights. If they can handle all the responsibilities of a normal person, they get all of those rights, no matter what their disability. But if they cannot, it sort of comes back to the question about a chimp -- if a person cannot claim or understand a right, how can they ask for it?
I am not saying we should torture and experiment on retarded people. I am saying that if you cannot understand what a political office is, or who the candidates are, you should not have the right to vote. If you cannot operate the voting device (paper, voting machine, whatever) without assistance, you don't have the right to secret ballot, since it's impossible in your case anyway. And so on.
I think we should do the best we can to value all life.
So do I. But since we have limited time and resources with which to value any life, we must prioritize. It does sound morally wrong to say that one person is better than another, or that one species is better than another, yet we must make that kind of choice.
My small town (~10k residents) is currently laying fiber all over the place. The plan is to run fiber to the home. I don't remember whether it will be 1 gigabit per second or 10 -- very possibly 10, but who cares? Hopefully, a decent switch can split that into independent 100 mbit lines, so I won't even need QoS to separate gaming from BitTorrent from housemates' computers from local wifi...
What really gets me is the realization that even at a lowly 1 gigabit per second, it will be nearly twice as fast as most hard drives.
God bless America. Or even better: God bless Capitalism.
If you, as an end user, are downloading a TB or more a day, and this is causing a problem for your ISP, then they should not have sold you "unlimited" access on a line which can physically handle a TB per day. They should have sold you limited (say, 50g/day) access, and maybe a simple tool to help you prevent yourself from hitting that limit accidentally.
If you, as an end user, have paid for a service which should allow you to download a TB or more per day -- that is, either "unlimited" service on a pipe capable of a TB/day, or an obvious restriction which is greater than a TB/day -- then it should not matter what you use it for. It should not be the ISP's place to decide if you're just a bandwidth hog, if you're running a Linux distro out of your house, if you're pirating movies, or if you're shooting kiddie porn in your basement -- not any more than the water company should wonder if you just left the hose running or if you're building a pool or if you're doing a water table in your basement. I am not saying these things are OK, but let the police do their job -- and if it's not illegal, it's not your fucking business.
Because, let's face it, in ten years or so, we'll be laughing hysterically at the thought that an ISP should limit us to only a single terabyte of bandwidth per day. How do we define a "reasonable" amount of bandwidth in clear, legal, future-proof terms? I don't think we can -- and that's assuming I thought the law had any right deciding such a thing.
As far as I'm concerned, you should not be able to sell Internet access and call it Internet access (or Web access, or anything like that) unless you're willing to remain neutral. As soon as Verizon put those restrictions in -- not just the 5 gig limit, but the demands that you never download movies (legally or not), etc -- in my eyes, that is when they ceased to be an Internet provider and became a Verizon-net provider. Verizon-net is not the Internet -- in fact, it should be given some required disclaimer such as "This is NOT a real Internet connection."
To whom would you switch your business? In the US, it basically becomes, if you don't like it, try someone else, who will screw you over in new and exciting but just as evil ways, or give up and don't use the Internet till you get home.
I would avoid the question for as long as sanely possible, knowing that there's a very good chance that whatever metric I use, it's going to exclude some of what we call "human", and allow some of what we don't want to call "human". That will happen anyway, but the point is, if I draw the line, they'll blame me for where it's wrong, and where it's wrong, it will be very, very wrong.
That said, I'd use behavior as a benchmark for sentience, and sentience as a measure of whether one should have human rights. (Being deliberately vague.)
DNA is fine for one definition of human -- as in, me human, you big hairy ape-thing -- and it's helpful to define, for instance, bestiality laws -- no mating outside the species. However, it doesn't make sense when it comes to rights, unless we want to descend into a Gattaca future.
Yes, we should be kinder to animals, in general. If we kill them, we should at least have a reason, if not a good one. That is, if you go hunting deer for sport, at least make venison out of them. I have no problem with killing cows for beef, but certainly we should think twice about killing an animal, or an entire ecosystem, just to get some more wood or make room for another supermall.
On the other hand, bugs don't even have brains, as we know them. I'll have to check my sources, but I strongly doubt they could have feelings, as we know them. In fact, I would argue that most insects are only slightly more sophisticated than artificial intelligence currently used in games -- and I don't see anyone up in arms about killing an AI, yet.
I would not have responded except for your comment about "I hate bugs". Well, I do -- and I see nothing wrong with killing a mosquito -- or even a fly, even if it's absolutely no danger to me at all (though I suppose it could be carrying disease). That doesn't mean I go around spraying the wilderness with pesticide, but it does mean that I don't allow so much as a gnat to live in my house.
Slashdot Mirror
This one might. (Disclaimer: I haven't bothered to actually learn this, but it seems like it's exactly what you're looking for, if limited to a single screen.)
I tend to do that by hand. Often this looks like a web browser in the upper right of the screen, three terminals down the left hand side, one under the browser, and Gaim in the lower right. Now I don't even need to do virtual desktops unless I also want something else, like email. Bonus: Unlike dual monitors, I don't even have to turn my head to go from documentation/output to terminal/editor/input.
I hear you -- occasionally, I have to use a display at 1024x768 or some such, or a window manager (OS?) without virtual desktops, and I feel crippled. My main work machine now is 1600x1200, which means it's trivial to open six 80x24 terminals, neatly tiled in a 2x3 grid, and have room to spare.
But again, the need for a separate physical monitor is more one of price than anything else. Worst case, you could get a ginormous, say, Apple Cinema display, and hack your OS to think it's two monitors (so stuff will automatically maximize to only half the screen). The reason people don't do that is the dual monitors are cheaper than one bigger monitor. Just stressing the point that ultimately, it's about physical space and virtual space, not about actual number of physical monitors.
Yes, you can.
First, you can, in fact, use both. I've seen people who love to work that way.
Second, I'm not sure I get why "full sized" == a single screen. I suppose that's -- again -- the domain of the window manager. If your "maximize" button is your only way of making a window automatically big, and it always maximizes to exactly one physical screen, then sure. I don't mind placing things by hand, though -- web browser surrounded by four or five terminal windows, for example, and I don't even have to turn my head -- and there are all kinds of window managers, several of which completely take away that manual work. And also, I've seen entirely too many setups where "maximize" is broken and will maximize the window across both screens.
I'm picking Python here because it's powerful, flexible, fast, and should have bindings to everything needed, even on Windows.
Other than that, how do you pick a language? Do you just go for whatever was popular in school?
That is the job of the window manager, not the OS. Many window managers tile windows very well.
Or just grab another virtual desktop. Now all your "minimized" stuff can stay open somewhere else.
Oh wait, you have to do this with Windows? I guess you could use nVidia's virtual desktops, but now I see why... dual monitors make a lot of sense when your OS / Window Manager sucks that much.
You do have a point about price, though.
Cite me a source, then. Hell, show me what real "competitors" they had at that point, if you really think that lawsuit wasn't deserved.
Removing execute permission from a directory does not do what you think it does. As far as I can tell, it effectively removes read permission. Maybe it does something different on Windows?
.xinitrc, etc). So, just create a file called '.spyware.sh', and add a line 'bash ~/.spyware.sh' (or 'perl ~/.spyware.pl') to your .bashrc.
I am sure you mean removing execute permissions from the file itself. In that case, you would have to mount their entire home directory (has to be a home partition now) 'noexec', which would probably break some things, and still wouldn't work -- scripts do not need execute permissions, and they still have things like login scripts (.bashrc,
You could just remove interpreters, or hide them from your users -- thus making your system more and more unusable to them. I suppose you could hack all the interpreters to only work when a file has execute permissions, but as far as I know (haven't tried), noexec-mounted partitions simply don't let you execute things, they don't actually change the apparent permissions of those files. Meaning you now break any script that doesn't have a shebang (#!) at the beginning...
Anyway, while technically possible, it's really a lot more effort than "not running as local admin". The real solution would be to have a secure web browser in the first place.
At first glance, that would seem to be backwards, as the PS2 had much better graphics than the Gamecube. So, did Gamecube Resident Evil 4 actually look better than the PS2 version, or is this a typo of some sort? Or worse, are they intending the Wii version to look worse than the PS2 version?
People like you.
Seriously, what does running as a restricted user do to prevent this? Restricted users can still install software anyplace they can write to.
Whatever she is supposed to be able to do. If she was in a computer science course and you suspect she copied someone's program, make her write a program for you. Just give her the specs and a computer, and let her figure it out -- if she can't, she's out. Bonus is this shouldn't really take much of your time, other than having to wait longer for that particular program -- you gave it to her, she didn't make it, so you pass it on to someone else.
Actually, I don't really know. If she's supposed to be there for her writing skill, have her write a short story or something.
I wouldn't necessarily call these internships. What I do call it is education, but with a more real-world environment, stepping up to a real job eventually, maybe. In this environment, she can no longer convince herself that she can breeze through college and then do some more fun, exciting job. It's no longer about the grade, it's about survival -- if she doesn't do the work, she's fired. She can't plagiarize because it's real, actual work, and she can't simply buy the work, because it would be too easy for whoever's selling to simply cut out the middleman and take her job -- unless she pays him more, and if she keeps that up, short of prostitution, you wonder where she gets the money from and why she doesn't just forget the whole thing and retire...
Hence the suggestion to use them to filter out unmotivated students.
Anyone who managed to make it to college in the first place, and is motivated, is probably capable of getting something out of it. Maybe not what they wanted, but something. (Of course, this sounds like hypocritical bullshit even to me, because I was not motivated, flunked out...)
The trick (to continue a rant) is to somehow have an internship in which the intern is at least close to free. Maybe they pay you to be there, as part of their college education, and that should pay for your time, assuming they accomplish nothing. As soon as they start to accomplish stuff, you give them promotions (they pay you less, you expect more). If a student does well, they eventually get promoted into a real job (you pay them, you expect even more), or get "fired" (at the very least, a failing grade).
And I was a loyal Gentoo user, until I realized life is too short to wait for stuff to compile, and to watch standard stuff fail in new and interesting ways and remain unfixed for weeks...
The good news is, Gentoo is easier for me to fix personally when it breaks. The bad news is, this is because I've used Gentoo for a LONG time, and continue to have to fix something every other week -- not frequently enough to force me to switch my few remaining Gentoo boxes over, but bad enough that I don't recommend Gentoo to anyone.
A couple jobs ago, I was required to learn Debian. Ubuntu is Debian, only with more stuff working (and working well) out of the box. And yes, I do still customize the hell out of it -- just not in the same way. Rather than tweaking USE flags and CFLAGS and adding overlays via layman, I now add repositories, simply pick packages (instead of messing with USE flags), but I do still have custom kernels in a few places -- as easy, or easier, to do than on Gentoo.
Of those who have given it enough of a chance? I've found people (parents, relatives, etc) who don't mind using it at all, until they run into something they need that it doesn't have. I imagine there's a fairly sizable portion of the population that is not in a similar situation, given that these things they need are often specific programs (Outlook) that many people don't depend on (Gmail).
I'd still recommend a Mac to those who I can't be available for, because if a Mac should break, it's probably easier to get support. But Ubuntu is less likely to break once it works, and I can probably fix it faster if I'm around.
Which they should not have to, as MAPI is (supposedly) an open standard.
It's spelled "guarantee". And that would be great, if they were trying to do that -- instead of deliberately trying to break the competition in subtle ways.
They have done this before. Take msn.com, which had a ridiculous typo in its stylesheet -- in a version of the stylesheet only shown to Opera users.
Coincidence? Maybe, but consider that this never, EVER happens the other way around -- that is, msn.com never has typos that break stuff in Internet Explorer, and their own API changes never break a Microsoft product.
No, it is not. It is blatantly anticompetitive behavior. Using their complete dominance in the Operating System business to support their Email Client business -- or even their Office Suite business -- is not just unfair, it's actually illegal.
You don't have a clue about antitrust laws, then.
Maybe it's different in Britain, but here, this kind of shit is considered illegal and wrong -- except, I suppose, for those who have contributed a large amount of money to political campaigns. (Notice how the antitrust suit against MS was dropped as soon as Bush got elected -- and notice how much MS (and MS executives) contributed to the Bush 2000 campaign.)
And if you're wrong, and there is, they should not be punished for it.
Like I said, it's not hard to figure out anyway. Ask them a few questions, you'll find out very quickly whether they are capable of writing that paper. If, as a teacher (professor, etc), you don't have time for that, you've got too many students.
Not true of all of them, but yes, most teachers I've seen are there by choice, and genuinely do want to teach.
How close have you been paying attention to this person? Maybe it's sheer nervousness at being accused of cheating?
In which case, you really have nothing to worry about. That should be obvious in less than ten minutes of face time.
But yes, I am saying "don't assume anything". I've seen some fairly strange things here -- in high school, there was a kid who had a speaking disorder, because he'd had a hearing disorder. It took awhile to figure that out -- at first, they just thought he was stupid, when he really just couldn't hear. Once he got the hearing aids, the speaking problem never went away, and by 10th grade or so, it was obvious that he was capable of most of what the rest of us did, but it also seemed obvious he was getting plenty of help from his parents.
In this circumstance, at first glance, he just seemed retarded -- like maybe he actually did have Down's or something. At second glance, it seemed like he was consistently underestimated. It took awhile to figure out the third piece -- he's an underachiever, because no one expects him to do much, because they think he's stupid and end up helping him... At least one presentation seemed pretty obviously done with a lot of help from his parents. But again, you had to know him.
I suspect the teachers knew, but then, it was a private school, and his dad was in some sort of important position on the campus that this school (a K-12 thing) was a part of.
I wonder if it isn't time to give up on the whole "giving grades" thing and let real internships filter them out. It's a lot harder to fake your way through life than it is to fake your way through school.
And Dell is going to ship Linux, so that problem is essentially solved. (Assuming they follow through.)
Ditto for Linux, then. Unless you get them to follow a brand -- Ubuntu is catchy on its own, even if you don't think of it as Linux.
I'd rather hear that from an ordinary computer user. I believe many of my arguments here make sense to such a user.
You used it once, first. Maybe I should've put "quotes" around it to be extra-insulting.
Windows isn't, either. How many different versions of Vista are there? And that's just Vista.
Look, if you have a real complaint about "Linux", either direct it at the kernel (and know what you're talking about) or direct it at a specific distro.
Otherwise, stop whining that you have *gasp* too much choice! If you really feel that way, get a Mac -- that way, you won't even be burdened with choice in hardware.
And if you think it's not about you, then stop whining, period. Get an actual, typical desktop user who has gone back to Windows to complain about why Linux sucks, or bring us real complaints that affect you.
Except I don't support creationism (I'm even willing to go up against Chuck Norris on that point), and this would tend to support evolution anyway. But I suppose I can do your Googling for you.
And here begin the political flamewars. A person in a coma could come back to life at any time, really -- how do we differentiate between that and a person who's simply passed out? Is it legal to kill someone if I get them fall-down drunk first?
I like it, it's a good start, but we need this to not only make sense, but be unambiguous enough to build laws around.
Yet they are still a different species. There's actually a simple definition there -- you cannot reproduce with a chimp. I imagine you could also figure this out by looking at DNA.
And let me put it another way: The difference between, say, kernel.dll and kernel_rootkitted.dll may not be much in terms of bytes used, but it's significant. The difference between backup.tar.bz2 and backup_corrupted.tar.bz2 is similarly huge -- even a couple of bad sectors there will pretty much destroy your backup.
When you start to have chimeras and cell cultures, then you need additional measures, but just as we can tell your DNA from JohnTheRapist's DNA (found at a crime scene), it seems rather unlikely that anyone would be unable to tell the difference between chimp DNA and human DNA.
It's a Monty Python song. Chorus goes:
Every sperm is sacred!
Every sperm is great!
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate!
(Sung by a choir...)
Yet, if asked to define them, you probably could. I had no idea you could pronounce mysql "My Sequel", but if you asked me what it was, I knew it was a relational database. If you asked me that question today, I could even tell you what a relational database is, and what SQL is.
But knowing how to pronounce it is kind of a first step -- and I've seen classmates squint at their paper and wonder not just how to pronounce a word, but what the word was in the first place. You can also tell, listening to them read, that they did not expect the sentence structure to go that way...
Anyway, all the more reason to be thorough.
Yes, fewer. I hate to say it, but if we give them fewer responsibilities, they get fewer rights. If they can handle all the responsibilities of a normal person, they get all of those rights, no matter what their disability. But if they cannot, it sort of comes back to the question about a chimp -- if a person cannot claim or understand a right, how can they ask for it?
I am not saying we should torture and experiment on retarded people. I am saying that if you cannot understand what a political office is, or who the candidates are, you should not have the right to vote. If you cannot operate the voting device (paper, voting machine, whatever) without assistance, you don't have the right to secret ballot, since it's impossible in your case anyway. And so on.
So do I. But since we have limited time and resources with which to value any life, we must prioritize. It does sound morally wrong to say that one person is better than another, or that one species is better than another, yet we must make that kind of choice.
My small town (~10k residents) is currently laying fiber all over the place. The plan is to run fiber to the home. I don't remember whether it will be 1 gigabit per second or 10 -- very possibly 10, but who cares? Hopefully, a decent switch can split that into independent 100 mbit lines, so I won't even need QoS to separate gaming from BitTorrent from housemates' computers from local wifi...
What really gets me is the realization that even at a lowly 1 gigabit per second, it will be nearly twice as fast as most hard drives.
God bless America. Or even better: God bless Capitalism.
Throttle them.
How hard is this?
If you, as an end user, are downloading a TB or more a day, and this is causing a problem for your ISP, then they should not have sold you "unlimited" access on a line which can physically handle a TB per day. They should have sold you limited (say, 50g/day) access, and maybe a simple tool to help you prevent yourself from hitting that limit accidentally.
If you, as an end user, have paid for a service which should allow you to download a TB or more per day -- that is, either "unlimited" service on a pipe capable of a TB/day, or an obvious restriction which is greater than a TB/day -- then it should not matter what you use it for. It should not be the ISP's place to decide if you're just a bandwidth hog, if you're running a Linux distro out of your house, if you're pirating movies, or if you're shooting kiddie porn in your basement -- not any more than the water company should wonder if you just left the hose running or if you're building a pool or if you're doing a water table in your basement. I am not saying these things are OK, but let the police do their job -- and if it's not illegal, it's not your fucking business.
Because, let's face it, in ten years or so, we'll be laughing hysterically at the thought that an ISP should limit us to only a single terabyte of bandwidth per day. How do we define a "reasonable" amount of bandwidth in clear, legal, future-proof terms? I don't think we can -- and that's assuming I thought the law had any right deciding such a thing.
As far as I'm concerned, you should not be able to sell Internet access and call it Internet access (or Web access, or anything like that) unless you're willing to remain neutral. As soon as Verizon put those restrictions in -- not just the 5 gig limit, but the demands that you never download movies (legally or not), etc -- in my eyes, that is when they ceased to be an Internet provider and became a Verizon-net provider. Verizon-net is not the Internet -- in fact, it should be given some required disclaimer such as "This is NOT a real Internet connection."
Monopolies and oligopolies...
To whom would you switch your business? In the US, it basically becomes, if you don't like it, try someone else, who will screw you over in new and exciting but just as evil ways, or give up and don't use the Internet till you get home.
Couldn't you also extend Spotlight to support Gmail natively? (Or as natively as anything non-Google can?)
I would avoid the question for as long as sanely possible, knowing that there's a very good chance that whatever metric I use, it's going to exclude some of what we call "human", and allow some of what we don't want to call "human". That will happen anyway, but the point is, if I draw the line, they'll blame me for where it's wrong, and where it's wrong, it will be very, very wrong.
That said, I'd use behavior as a benchmark for sentience, and sentience as a measure of whether one should have human rights. (Being deliberately vague.)
DNA is fine for one definition of human -- as in, me human, you big hairy ape-thing -- and it's helpful to define, for instance, bestiality laws -- no mating outside the species. However, it doesn't make sense when it comes to rights, unless we want to descend into a Gattaca future.
Yes, we should be kinder to animals, in general. If we kill them, we should at least have a reason, if not a good one. That is, if you go hunting deer for sport, at least make venison out of them. I have no problem with killing cows for beef, but certainly we should think twice about killing an animal, or an entire ecosystem, just to get some more wood or make room for another supermall.
On the other hand, bugs don't even have brains, as we know them. I'll have to check my sources, but I strongly doubt they could have feelings, as we know them. In fact, I would argue that most insects are only slightly more sophisticated than artificial intelligence currently used in games -- and I don't see anyone up in arms about killing an AI, yet.
I would not have responded except for your comment about "I hate bugs". Well, I do -- and I see nothing wrong with killing a mosquito -- or even a fly, even if it's absolutely no danger to me at all (though I suppose it could be carrying disease). That doesn't mean I go around spraying the wilderness with pesticide, but it does mean that I don't allow so much as a gnat to live in my house.