Isn't that missing the point that vadar built C3PO? I'd recognise everything I ever built. Even if I built it from a kit that half a million other kids used. There's always a scratch or badly done part that I'll recall a story about or something.
Your ignorance is fucking hilarious. Me and all my work-colleagues haven't laughed so much in weeks.
ps Comparing the pieces of a watch to the components of cells is a false analogy.
pps Claiming breaking up a watch and having it spontaneously recreate itself is akin to evolution or a chemical formation of life is also an amazingly ignorant and false analogy.
ppps I admire the fact you didn't post anonymously, but you should really actually try to understand the current thinking of evolutionary scientists before you attempt to discredit them.
pppps Unlike you religious fruitcakes, evolutionary scientists don't all agree with each other, and welcome criticism of their theories. You could probably learn something from them.
People always think of oil being only to power their cars. But by far more important is oil as an essential component of drugs and materials like plastic.
I find it inconceivable that we are burning this unbelievably important resource. What will we do when we wake up one day and we can't drive anywhere, we can't shrink-wrap our groceries and we can't even take a paracetamol to relieve the headache we've caused ourselves?
By that point I think there'll be a tasty patent-pending for retrieving long-chain-hydrocarbons from landfill sites. But we're still gunna be screwed if we run out of oil early because we burnt it all.
If it was written in Win32, IME it would take a lot longer before it was a bug-free and stable application. c# encourages better programming in the first place.
So for 12 months all your users may take twice as long to use the app due to crashes and buggy behaviour if you wrote it in win32.
Here in the UK it seems to me the immigrants have a better work ethic than the native white-trash (chavs).
My gf's father described how his country-village has given all the jobs to the polish immigrants because they work harder and for less. The english they replaced just sit around in pubs nowadays moaning about it.
Somehow we have to figure out how to persuade the chav-populace to stop living on benefits and give back to society before it all crashes due to too many people living on benefits and not enough work getting done to pay for it.
Otherwise I may emmigrate, things always seemed better on the continent, although I don't think I should make conclusions based on a few weeks here and there. I owe this country the cost of my education, so I'll pay that off and then skidaddle if things haven't improved.
I don't think that your requirement for the link to be there is necessary.
Humans are well geared to learning meaningless bunches of syllabals thrown together randomly and associating them with objects. Each of us knows millions of words! Association took a few years and didn't require words to be built on each other.
I don't disagree that it helps, but honestly, all the best names are taken. It is also important for the name to be distinctive, short and memorable. GnomeMeeting is too long a name, and sounds like a generic piece of pap. Ekiga isn't easy to remember but sounds a lot more exciting, and is short.
Overall probably an improvement.
And anyway you rarely if ever learn the purpose of apps that aren't shipped with the computer from the name. You learn by word-of-mouth, and that almost always comes with a description of the purpose of the app. Unless it comes with GNOME, but GNOME apps are listed by their purpose and the appname in brackets, so it is hardly relevant.
If they are sensible they'll make the startmenu shortcut "Ekiga - Video Conferencing Application". Of course on GNOME/KDE this is done automatically by the Applications/K-Menu.
But anyway, naming apps after what they do is not that important. Word-of-mouth is the fastest way that people learn about apps, especially ones that don't come with the computer. And it is a rare case that word of mouth doesn't include the tool's purpose.
The most important thing is to have a distinctive name that people won't forget, and can pronounce easily in your target market.
Hence, Firefox and not "No Machine - NX". The latter is a fabulous technology that no matter how many times I tell my boss about it, he can't remember the name. Firefox he got first time.
So finally I agree Ekiga is a suboptimal name, but not for the reasons in the parent's post. My problem is, I'm not sure exactly how to pronounce it, and it isn't that easy to rememeber.
If they are sensible they'll make the startmenu shortcut "Ekiga - Video Conferencing Application". Of course on GNOME/KDE this is done automatically by the Applications/K-Menu.
But anyway, naming apps after what they do is not that important. Word-of-mouth is the fastest way that people learn about apps, especially ones that don't come with the computer. And it is a rare case that word of mouth doesn't include the tool's purpose.
The most important thing is to have a distinctive name that people won't forget, and can pronounce easily in your target market.
Hence, Firefox and not "No Machine - NX". The latter is a fabulous technology that no matter how many times I tell my boss about it, he can't remember the name. Firefox he got first time.
So finally I agree Ekiga is a suboptimal name, but not for the reasons in the parent's post. My problem is, I'm not sure exactly how to pronounce it, and it isn't that easy to rememeber.
If you have access to the machine you don't need to know the root password, you can easily access any file on the machine by booting a live-cd or any OS that can mount the filesystem type the *nix is installed with.
In my experience the frame rates are almost always as good, but slightly worse, however things like startup time are much faster. And the system is as I left it when I exit the game while on Windows it takes minutes for the disk to stop buzzing and the desktop to be responsive again.
Having re-read your comment I have more to say I spose.
Food and our biologies are very complex stuff, it is just stupid to assume you can draw simple and single rules about eating the stuff.
Your example of eating 4 or 5 bits celery, etc. is exactly right. None of us have the same biology, and food is full of different chemicals. It is the best general advice science can give.
It is not like physics where at a basic enough level everything is 100% predictable. What you are asking for is not yet possible, there's no point getting upset about it. Nor is it fair to get angry at the people who release the data, because you basically don't understand the issues under discussion.
What is obvious is you have no idea how science works at all.
Scientists are openly aware they don't understand science. The whole point in papers/journals is to report on findings, request peer-review and discuss the findings with a goal of trying to figure out what the fuck is going on.
OK? Moron. The less people like you in the world the faster we'd all actually make some progress.
Coffee probably has something like 40,000 different chemicals in it. You can't expect compare it with a relatively simple set of technologies like some web-browser and mouse combination.
Anyway, if you read the studies rather than the media's interpretations of the studies you'd find none of the studies advise you on whether to drink coffee or not. They all simply discuss their finding with regards to one component of the 40,000 (or whatever) components in the coffee.
If you don't actually read the data correctly you are destined to make bad decisions. Blaming that on people you don't even understand is stupid.
What happens is that conflicting summaries get posted around the Internet and everyone thinks scientists are just having them on.
If you look carefully the summary for the research is saying the caffeine is bad for you, and that the study concluded this based on research into coffee consumption. The other studies that claim coffee is good for you were actually referring to other chemicals in coffee, not the caffeine, nor the entirety of the coffee.
Also people seem to think that scientists study everything about a topic before releasing results. But that is a misunderstanding about how science works. Generally scientists focus on very small areas of large topics and then propose more sweeping conclusions. Usually the media then make even more generalised conclusions that result in complete misunderstanding in non-scientists.
Peer review is also important, often these studies are fundamentally flawed and even though the submitted paper offers a conclusion, the scientist writing it is well aware that in science, nothing is proved by one paper. Instead wait ten years for more supporting evidence, rinse, repeat and progress.
It shouldn't be too surprising that too much of anything is bad for you. Most food stuffs have complicated chemicals in, and thus too much of any of them can give your body a hard time due to damaging reactions, or difficulty in disposal.
However having said this, I until recently was having something like 6 cups of coffee a day. A few months ago my body started reacting really badly to even the smell of coffee, drinking a cup gives me a terrible reaction with shivering, accelerated heart rate and light-headedness for up to a few hours.
The stuff is nasty.
Currently I'm drinking 6 cups of tea a day instead;)
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that missing the point that vadar built C3PO? I'd recognise everything I ever built. Even if I built it from a kit that half a million other kids used. There's always a scratch or badly done part that I'll recall a story about or something.
Your ignorance is fucking hilarious. Me and all my work-colleagues haven't laughed so much in weeks.
ps Comparing the pieces of a watch to the components of cells is a false analogy.
pps Claiming breaking up a watch and having it spontaneously recreate itself is akin to evolution or a chemical formation of life is also an amazingly ignorant and false analogy.
ppps I admire the fact you didn't post anonymously, but you should really actually try to understand the current thinking of evolutionary scientists before you attempt to discredit them.
pppps Unlike you religious fruitcakes, evolutionary scientists don't all agree with each other, and welcome criticism of their theories. You could probably learn something from them.
People always think of oil being only to power their cars. But by far more important is oil as an essential component of drugs and materials like plastic.
I find it inconceivable that we are burning this unbelievably important resource. What will we do when we wake up one day and we can't drive anywhere, we can't shrink-wrap our groceries and we can't even take a paracetamol to relieve the headache we've caused ourselves?
By that point I think there'll be a tasty patent-pending for retrieving long-chain-hydrocarbons from landfill sites. But we're still gunna be screwed if we run out of oil early because we burnt it all.
If it was written in Win32, IME it would take a lot longer before it was a bug-free and stable application. c# encourages better programming in the first place.
So for 12 months all your users may take twice as long to use the app due to crashes and buggy behaviour if you wrote it in win32.
Great post.
Here in the UK it seems to me the immigrants have a better work ethic than the native white-trash (chavs).
My gf's father described how his country-village has given all the jobs to the polish immigrants because they work harder and for less. The english they replaced just sit around in pubs nowadays moaning about it.
Somehow we have to figure out how to persuade the chav-populace to stop living on benefits and give back to society before it all crashes due to too many people living on benefits and not enough work getting done to pay for it.
Otherwise I may emmigrate, things always seemed better on the continent, although I don't think I should make conclusions based on a few weeks here and there. I owe this country the cost of my education, so I'll pay that off and then skidaddle if things haven't improved.
FYI, your insulting tone makes you look a lot less intelligent than you claim to be.
I don't think that your requirement for the link to be there is necessary.
Humans are well geared to learning meaningless bunches of syllabals thrown together randomly and associating them with objects. Each of us knows millions of words! Association took a few years and didn't require words to be built on each other.
I don't disagree that it helps, but honestly, all the best names are taken. It is also important for the name to be distinctive, short and memorable. GnomeMeeting is too long a name, and sounds like a generic piece of pap. Ekiga isn't easy to remember but sounds a lot more exciting, and is short.
Overall probably an improvement.
And anyway you rarely if ever learn the purpose of apps that aren't shipped with the computer from the name. You learn by word-of-mouth, and that almost always comes with a description of the purpose of the app. Unless it comes with GNOME, but GNOME apps are listed by their purpose and the appname in brackets, so it is hardly relevant.
If they are sensible they'll make the startmenu shortcut "Ekiga - Video Conferencing Application". Of course on GNOME/KDE this is done automatically by the Applications/K-Menu.
But anyway, naming apps after what they do is not that important. Word-of-mouth is the fastest way that people learn about apps, especially ones that don't come with the computer. And it is a rare case that word of mouth doesn't include the tool's purpose.
The most important thing is to have a distinctive name that people won't forget, and can pronounce easily in your target market.
Hence, Firefox and not "No Machine - NX". The latter is a fabulous technology that no matter how many times I tell my boss about it, he can't remember the name. Firefox he got first time.
So finally I agree Ekiga is a suboptimal name, but not for the reasons in the parent's post. My problem is, I'm not sure exactly how to pronounce it, and it isn't that easy to rememeber.
If they are sensible they'll make the startmenu shortcut "Ekiga - Video Conferencing Application". Of course on GNOME/KDE this is done automatically by the Applications/K-Menu.
But anyway, naming apps after what they do is not that important. Word-of-mouth is the fastest way that people learn about apps, especially ones that don't come with the computer. And it is a rare case that word of mouth doesn't include the tool's purpose.
The most important thing is to have a distinctive name that people won't forget, and can pronounce easily in your target market.
Hence, Firefox and not "No Machine - NX". The latter is a fabulous technology that no matter how many times I tell my boss about it, he can't remember the name. Firefox he got first time.
So finally I agree Ekiga is a suboptimal name, but not for the reasons in the parent's post. My problem is, I'm not sure exactly how to pronounce it, and it isn't that easy to rememeber.
Congratulations on your unbearably obvious comment.
If you have access to the machine you don't need to know the root password, you can easily access any file on the machine by booting a live-cd or any OS that can mount the filesystem type the *nix is installed with.
The only protection is encryption.
I'm fed up with people claiming slashdot has some kind of bias. Ever article I read has fanboys and lapdogs bigging up their flavour of the month.
There's no bias, there's just a bias in which people comment/mod which stories. K?
They settle down until they don't get the phat loot or something, and then it's evens they'll throw some immature hissy fit.
In my experience the frame rates are almost always as good, but slightly worse, however things like startup time are much faster. And the system is as I left it when I exit the game while on Windows it takes minutes for the disk to stop buzzing and the desktop to be responsive again.
Having re-read your comment I have more to say I spose.
Food and our biologies are very complex stuff, it is just stupid to assume you can draw simple and single rules about eating the stuff.
Your example of eating 4 or 5 bits celery, etc. is exactly right. None of us have the same biology, and food is full of different chemicals. It is the best general advice science can give.
It is not like physics where at a basic enough level everything is 100% predictable. What you are asking for is not yet possible, there's no point getting upset about it. Nor is it fair to get angry at the people who release the data, because you basically don't understand the issues under discussion.
What is obvious is you have no idea how science works at all.
Scientists are openly aware they don't understand science. The whole point in papers/journals is to report on findings, request peer-review and discuss the findings with a goal of trying to figure out what the fuck is going on.
OK? Moron. The less people like you in the world the faster we'd all actually make some progress.
Coffee probably has something like 40,000 different chemicals in it. You can't expect compare it with a relatively simple set of technologies like some web-browser and mouse combination.
Anyway, if you read the studies rather than the media's interpretations of the studies you'd find none of the studies advise you on whether to drink coffee or not. They all simply discuss their finding with regards to one component of the 40,000 (or whatever) components in the coffee.
If you don't actually read the data correctly you are destined to make bad decisions. Blaming that on people you don't even understand is stupid.
You can't make any conclusions based on two data points ffs. 2000 perhaps. 20,000, and I'll have some respect for the conclusion.
Thanks for this information, I'm now a little scared, but am definately going to do something about it.
A topic as complex and difficult to understand as biology leads to advise and information that is complex and difficult to interpret.
Isn't that fucking obvious?
What happens is that conflicting summaries get posted around the Internet and everyone thinks scientists are just having them on.
If you look carefully the summary for the research is saying the caffeine is bad for you, and that the study concluded this based on research into coffee consumption. The other studies that claim coffee is good for you were actually referring to other chemicals in coffee, not the caffeine, nor the entirety of the coffee.
Also people seem to think that scientists study everything about a topic before releasing results. But that is a misunderstanding about how science works. Generally scientists focus on very small areas of large topics and then propose more sweeping conclusions. Usually the media then make even more generalised conclusions that result in complete misunderstanding in non-scientists.
Peer review is also important, often these studies are fundamentally flawed and even though the submitted paper offers a conclusion, the scientist writing it is well aware that in science, nothing is proved by one paper. Instead wait ten years for more supporting evidence, rinse, repeat and progress.
It shouldn't be too surprising that too much of anything is bad for you. Most food stuffs have complicated chemicals in, and thus too much of any of them can give your body a hard time due to damaging reactions, or difficulty in disposal.
;)
However having said this, I until recently was having something like 6 cups of coffee a day. A few months ago my body started reacting really badly to even the smell of coffee, drinking a cup gives me a terrible reaction with shivering, accelerated heart rate and light-headedness for up to a few hours.
The stuff is nasty.
Currently I'm drinking 6 cups of tea a day instead
Ironically, tar is exactly what you should use for the backups. You are apparently ignorant or incompetent.
I use Linux predominantly, but even I can tell your an ignorant fool.
For sure.