What about valet parking or taking the car to the shop? Obviously, there has to be some kind of override and as such, thieves, will find a way to hack it and still steal the vehicle.
Would using a gnome 2 panel in KDE make a perfectly functional "car?" No, some choices are better than others. But no matter how anybody wants to spin it, a window manager's sole purpose is to manage the windows on the screen.
I don't see why people get so upset when it is pointed out that there is a difference between window managers and DEs? Even LXDE, which is normally built on top of Openbox claims they are working to becoming a full fledged DE. They've got most of the components in place to be pretty functional now. However, LXDE and Openbox are not synonymous. LXDE is the desktop environment, Openbox is the window manager. LXDE adds functionality on top of the base platform of Openbox.
People are free to add what they want to a base window manager and create the GUI they want. At some point, if enough is added, they are running their own custom DE, not a window manager. Just as in a hot rodder, at some point is running their own custom car, not just a chassis.
A DE provides a window manager, clipboard, drag and drop, printing, theming, file i/o status/monitoring, inter-process communication, etc. However, the most important, thing a DE provides is a standard API that programmers can use to interact with it.
Even adding the bits and pieces to a window manager does not make a desktop environment until all of those bits and pieces can be accessed through a standard, cohesive API. Think of it as the difference between CUPS and lpr. You can print with both of them, but one of them is is a more complete solution than the other. Not everyone needs CUPS, nor does everyone need a full DE.
As for you last comment, about making a window manager as powerful as a DE, it cannot be. Window managers, are by definition, for controlling the windows on the screen, that is it. What you probably want to say is that you can build your own GUI from any window manager that is just as powerful as any DE.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about desktop environments. Adding a panel to a a window manager is not a true desktop environment. Desktop environments provide other services besides the ability to launch an application. Xfce, Gnome, KDE are desktop environments. Openbox, Fluxbox, etc. are window managers. While one can make a window manager look visually like a desktop environment, without the other services, it is not.
As an example, you can take Xfce, a desktop, and replace the window manager (xfwm) with openbox and you still have a desktop environment, because the window manager is only one piece of it.
While all desktop environments include a window manager, no window manager is a desktop environment. You can add all of the components on services to make your own desktop environment, however, that still doesn't make the window manager (or panel) the desktop environment.
Think of it like an automobile is a desktop environment. It is a complete package. You can swap parts out (tires, engine, transmission), but none of these parts is the automobile. You can even start with a plain chasis and add everything else custom the way you want. That is what happens when you take a window manager and start adding your own panels and services. Just as at some point your project car becomes a complete automobile, so to will your efforts lead to a complete desktop environment. But until that occurs, all you have is a bunch of parts.
Lets hope this is the start of a whole new set of Desktop Environments, and I don't mean the bloated, needlessly flashy, touchscreen optimised, BS that looks like children's toys.(Yes KDE, Unity, Gnome I'm looking at you.)
It is the bloat that turns lean window managers into actual desktop environment. Take LXDE, it is basically openbox with a few panels. By the time you add a printing subsystem, notification subsystem, and all the other things that truly make up a desktop environment, then it is no longer so lightweight. It is not the eye-candy that makes KDE and Gnome so heavy, it is all the other services provided in the background.
A project focuses on making a new desktop environment based on a GUI toolkit used by one of the major desktop environments, but with the aim to be lightweight...
And they are calling it a KDE ripoff? Shouldn't it be an XFCE ripoff?
Technically, this isn't a desktop environment, any more than fluxbox is a desktop "environment." To be an environment, you have to provide additional services and functionality. Xfce is an environment, but not as feature rich as Gnome or KDE. So,if you want to be accurate, this is not a KDE ripoff, but an LXDE ripoff (which is also not a true desktop environment).
The reason could also be a simple accounting one. Companies need to hold out reserves for warranties and have to book an expense for the estimated payout related to them. Shortening the warranty period has a dramatic effect on the bottom line, which keeps the shareholders happy.
While it is true that those large open source projects you mention have corporate backing that is only after the fact. Large open source projects follow the same pattern as any other startup. If they have a product that looks promising, then others either invest in them or buy them out.
While there are examples of large companies starting open source projects, the majority of them have occurred as small projects that gained popularity and grew. There are also large open source companies that continue to sponsor other open source companies, but they do so, for the same reason as closed source companies -- it makes good business sense.
I do agree that just because something is open source does not mean that people will flock to it and develop it for free. However, an open source project that is useful and well received is much more likely to have that happen. Open sourcing Web OS, even without strong corporate support, is much more likely to see it having continued development than if it weren't open sourced. That does not mean it will be a success, just that those interested can continue to develop it.
Like any open source project, if there isn't enough interest, it will die out. If there is a lot, then it will get corporate backing. That's the beauty of the open source model.
And I'd like to see the statistics that prove that 5-10 years of appeals cost more than keeping someone alive in prison for 40-60 years!
I tend to favor the Texas standard - if 3 credible eyewitnesses see you commit a heinous crime, you go "to the front of the line".
In other words, if there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT you are guilty, why waste any time with keeping your sorry ass alive another day? I have no problem with a moratorium on the death penalty if there is even a shadow of a doubt, but there should be "A WHOLE CROWD SAW HIM DO IT, HE'S DEFINITELY GUILTY" category that doesn't waste time or money on lengthy appeals or a life sentence.
And of course, Texas is the one state that never has had to release an innocent person from death row.
You can google "how much does it cost to execute a prisoner" for a whole list of resources, but you won't find many that take the position that execution is cheaper than life in prison.
Actually, life in prison and those put to death have the same recidivism rate as to repeat offenders.
This is not true, there is a small but significant number of criminals who are in prison on life sentences who commit additional violent crimes while in prison. The number of criminals on death row who do so is much smaller (largely because they are generally kept separate from the general population).
Are you stating that a significant number of those who have received a life sentence instead of a death penalty commit additional violent crimes? That would be the comparison to make, not just those with life sentences, which can be for any number of crimes that wouldn't warrant a death penalty.
I'd be interested in seeing your statistics that support that, because it goes against most of the data I have seen.
From the article "A lack of enforcement is "a likely reason texting bans aren't reducing crashes," the institute found, saying that survey results indicate many drivers, "especially younger ones, shrug off these bans."
So it appears that it isn't the ban that is the problem but lack of enforcement. Using drunk driving as an example, if it isn't enforced, then banning drunk driving wouldn't reduce crashes either, it is the enforcement of the ban that causes the ban to be effective.
I find it hard to believe that listing to a conference call as I drive (through the bluetooth adapter built into my car) is a danger.
I bet the real danger in coversation is emotionally or intellectually engaging activity, that is, pulling your mental focus away from driving. The exact same problem is likely there with talk radio - dangerous or not depending on how much shouting you're doing.
Texting is always bad, of course, but "look where you're going" is good advice in general.
Listening to a conference isn't more dangerous and is not what the NTSB is wanting to ban. Conversing on the phone and texting is what their recommendation is about. The reason, basically is as you state, pulling mental focus away.
A lot of liberals will say that thougher sentences don't stop repeat offenders, it shows all liberals are liars or just not very good at logic. No person put to death has ever offended again.
Anyway, why make murder illegal then? It doesn't stop people so might as well legalize it.
Actually, life in prison and those put to death have the same recidivism rate as to repeat offenders. If your goal is to stop repeat offenders, then life in prison is definitely more cost effective compared to the appeal process involved with executing people. In addition, at the outside chance that the wrong person is convicted, one of those methods is easier to reverse than the other. So, even though I am a conservative, the liberal logic seems spot on.
While texting and driving is illegal in many states, studies show that accidents caused by doing so are higher in states where it's illegal because people who do it hold the phone further away to avoid detection.
Making something illegal does not stop people from doing it.
1. Update Trapster about a cop and radar you just passed (not illegal to do)
2. Changing the station on Pandora or switching to a new album to play
Hmm...will it now be illegal for me to use my CB radio? I have a unit that is not handheld, but it isn't mounted so as to be easier to take from car to car as needed...so, is it now a 'portable' electronic device?
Look, we already have perfectly good laws on the books....if you're driving in an impared or reckless manner, they have the ability to pull you over for that.
If you're driving badly, it shouldn't matter what you're doing...and if you're driving ok...leave me the fuck alone.
Well, if this became law, 1 would be illegal, 2 would not be covered by the law (any more than changing tunes on an ipod).
However, even if it doesn't become law, texting and driving is really, really dangerous (and illegal in many states), so 1 is foolish, 2 isn't a problem. Studies show that using a cell phone (talk or text) while driving causes just as much impairment as drinking and driving, so why would it be a problem to have similar laws against it?
We've already sent a bunch of ships to Mars that started in Earths microbe-swarming environment. We've probably already seeded Mars with Earth microbes.
By the time we colonize Mars, it might already be growing enough cheese for us to eat, instead of the native cheese that eats us.
Our microbes need water and can't handle the unshielded surface of Mars. The martian microbes are thought to be living a few kilometers underground.
I'm just pointing out that the poster I remarked to, who was implying the original poster was stupid, didn't have it right, either. Technically speaking, the question had to deal with microbes living in the habitable portion of the crust. Since the size given was based off of the circumference of the Earth, it overstated the habitable crust. To make an accurate comparison, the earth's volume less the water needs to be used. Even that figure, is inaccurate since only a thin layer of the crust is inhabitable by microbes so the differences between Earth and Mars are even less.
The so called 1% you are complaining about representing false precision changes the actual comparison by just under 14%. In addition, that 1% change to the Earth is about equivalent to all of Mars habitable environment. So, I don't think it is introducing false precision at all. However, as I stated, my point was that it isn't as straight forward as the poster said and therefore, the original poster had a valid question.
First off, we need to get off this planet with a base. By doing that, if something DOES happen here, they stand a chance of having humanity survive. But the real issue is that ppl on mars could re-program, re-build, re-think how things were happening. In addition, the amount of science that would flow would be MUCH cheaper than by doing robotic alone. No, we need BOTH there.
You really think that providing a permanent residence on Mars (the original post was about one way only trips) would be cheaper than sending a bunch of robots? It seems that maintaining the international space station is quite costly and it is in orbit versus millions of miles away. Remember, no air, no water, no ozone or magnetic field to ward off radiation, etc. I agree that there are things in space that require human beings, but sending them is usually much, much more expensive than not.
Though a trivial amount of money ($3.41 in November 2011)
Lately, all one hears about is how Mint is more popular than Ubuntu and the top distro on Distrowatch. Well, maybe the trivial amount of money taken through Banshee shows how popular the distro really is.
Since they are talking about habitable / life bearing areas under ground, wouldn't you need to also subtract the volume of water from the total volume of the earth to get an accurate comparison? There is about 1,386,000,000km^3 water on earth, so the Earth/Mars ratio would be 1.93.
That's good news for microbes! Now, when the earth is about to be destroyed by a rogue comet, they can all jump on a ship, head towards Mars, borrow down a few kilometers and survive. For the rest of us, though, it doesn't look too promising.
If you want to admire wasted talent lay off the scientists trying to learn about genetic manipulation which could lead to all sorts of useful things and focus on the truly wasted. A good place to start would be all the talent we devote to trying to sell each other crap.
Except that the genetic manipulation has already occurred. You do remember Dolly the sheep, right? They aren't planning on taking the DNA of an elephant and manipulate it into a woolly mammoth, they are planing on using the same cloning procedures that produced Dolly but using 10,000 year old DNA.
Slashdot Mirror
What about valet parking or taking the car to the shop? Obviously, there has to be some kind of override and as such, thieves, will find a way to hack it and still steal the vehicle.
Would using a gnome 2 panel in KDE make a perfectly functional "car?" No, some choices are better than others. But no matter how anybody wants to spin it, a window manager's sole purpose is to manage the windows on the screen.
I don't see why people get so upset when it is pointed out that there is a difference between window managers and DEs? Even LXDE, which is normally built on top of Openbox claims they are working to becoming a full fledged DE. They've got most of the components in place to be pretty functional now. However, LXDE and Openbox are not synonymous. LXDE is the desktop environment, Openbox is the window manager. LXDE adds functionality on top of the base platform of Openbox.
People are free to add what they want to a base window manager and create the GUI they want. At some point, if enough is added, they are running their own custom DE, not a window manager. Just as in a hot rodder, at some point is running their own custom car, not just a chassis.
A DE provides a window manager, clipboard, drag and drop, printing, theming, file i/o status/monitoring, inter-process communication, etc. However, the most important, thing a DE provides is a standard API that programmers can use to interact with it.
Even adding the bits and pieces to a window manager does not make a desktop environment until all of those bits and pieces can be accessed through a standard, cohesive API. Think of it as the difference between CUPS and lpr. You can print with both of them, but one of them is is a more complete solution than the other. Not everyone needs CUPS, nor does everyone need a full DE.
As for you last comment, about making a window manager as powerful as a DE, it cannot be. Window managers, are by definition, for controlling the windows on the screen, that is it. What you probably want to say is that you can build your own GUI from any window manager that is just as powerful as any DE.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about desktop environments. Adding a panel to a a window manager is not a true desktop environment. Desktop environments provide other services besides the ability to launch an application. Xfce, Gnome, KDE are desktop environments. Openbox, Fluxbox, etc. are window managers. While one can make a window manager look visually like a desktop environment, without the other services, it is not.
As an example, you can take Xfce, a desktop, and replace the window manager (xfwm) with openbox and you still have a desktop environment, because the window manager is only one piece of it.
While all desktop environments include a window manager, no window manager is a desktop environment. You can add all of the components on services to make your own desktop environment, however, that still doesn't make the window manager (or panel) the desktop environment.
Think of it like an automobile is a desktop environment. It is a complete package. You can swap parts out (tires, engine, transmission), but none of these parts is the automobile. You can even start with a plain chasis and add everything else custom the way you want. That is what happens when you take a window manager and start adding your own panels and services. Just as at some point your project car becomes a complete automobile, so to will your efforts lead to a complete desktop environment. But until that occurs, all you have is a bunch of parts.
Lets hope this is the start of a whole new set of Desktop Environments, and I don't mean the bloated, needlessly flashy, touchscreen optimised, BS that looks like children's toys.(Yes KDE, Unity, Gnome I'm looking at you.)
It is the bloat that turns lean window managers into actual desktop environment. Take LXDE, it is basically openbox with a few panels. By the time you add a printing subsystem, notification subsystem, and all the other things that truly make up a desktop environment, then it is no longer so lightweight. It is not the eye-candy that makes KDE and Gnome so heavy, it is all the other services provided in the background.
My complaint about that is that...
A project focuses on making a new desktop environment based on a GUI toolkit used by one of the major desktop environments, but with the aim to be lightweight...
And they are calling it a KDE ripoff? Shouldn't it be an XFCE ripoff?
Technically, this isn't a desktop environment, any more than fluxbox is a desktop "environment." To be an environment, you have to provide additional services and functionality. Xfce is an environment, but not as feature rich as Gnome or KDE. So,if you want to be accurate, this is not a KDE ripoff, but an LXDE ripoff (which is also not a true desktop environment).
The reason could also be a simple accounting one. Companies need to hold out reserves for warranties and have to book an expense for the estimated payout related to them. Shortening the warranty period has a dramatic effect on the bottom line, which keeps the shareholders happy.
While it is true that those large open source projects you mention have corporate backing that is only after the fact. Large open source projects follow the same pattern as any other startup. If they have a product that looks promising, then others either invest in them or buy them out.
While there are examples of large companies starting open source projects, the majority of them have occurred as small projects that gained popularity and grew. There are also large open source companies that continue to sponsor other open source companies, but they do so, for the same reason as closed source companies -- it makes good business sense.
I do agree that just because something is open source does not mean that people will flock to it and develop it for free. However, an open source project that is useful and well received is much more likely to have that happen. Open sourcing Web OS, even without strong corporate support, is much more likely to see it having continued development than if it weren't open sourced. That does not mean it will be a success, just that those interested can continue to develop it.
Like any open source project, if there isn't enough interest, it will die out. If there is a lot, then it will get corporate backing. That's the beauty of the open source model.
And I'd like to see the statistics that prove that 5-10 years of appeals cost more than keeping someone alive in prison for 40-60 years!
I tend to favor the Texas standard - if 3 credible eyewitnesses see you commit a heinous crime, you go "to the front of the line".
In other words, if there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT you are guilty, why waste any time with keeping your sorry ass alive another day? I have no problem with a moratorium on the death penalty if there is even a shadow of a doubt, but there should be "A WHOLE CROWD SAW HIM DO IT, HE'S DEFINITELY GUILTY" category that doesn't waste time or money on lengthy appeals or a life sentence.
And of course, Texas is the one state that never has had to release an innocent person from death row.
As for costs, well, here is a link that discusses it: http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html
You can google "how much does it cost to execute a prisoner" for a whole list of resources, but you won't find many that take the position that execution is cheaper than life in prison.
Actually, life in prison and those put to death have the same recidivism rate as to repeat offenders.
This is not true, there is a small but significant number of criminals who are in prison on life sentences who commit additional violent crimes while in prison. The number of criminals on death row who do so is much smaller (largely because they are generally kept separate from the general population).
Are you stating that a significant number of those who have received a life sentence instead of a death penalty commit additional violent crimes? That would be the comparison to make, not just those with life sentences, which can be for any number of crimes that wouldn't warrant a death penalty.
I'd be interested in seeing your statistics that support that, because it goes against most of the data I have seen.
From the article "A lack of enforcement is "a likely reason texting bans aren't reducing crashes," the institute found, saying that survey results indicate many drivers, "especially younger ones, shrug off these bans."
So it appears that it isn't the ban that is the problem but lack of enforcement. Using drunk driving as an example, if it isn't enforced, then banning drunk driving wouldn't reduce crashes either, it is the enforcement of the ban that causes the ban to be effective.
I find it hard to believe that listing to a conference call as I drive (through the bluetooth adapter built into my car) is a danger.
I bet the real danger in coversation is emotionally or intellectually engaging activity, that is, pulling your mental focus away from driving. The exact same problem is likely there with talk radio - dangerous or not depending on how much shouting you're doing.
Texting is always bad, of course, but "look where you're going" is good advice in general.
Listening to a conference isn't more dangerous and is not what the NTSB is wanting to ban. Conversing on the phone and texting is what their recommendation is about. The reason, basically is as you state, pulling mental focus away.
A lot of liberals will say that thougher sentences don't stop repeat offenders, it shows all liberals are liars or just not very good at logic. No person put to death has ever offended again.
Anyway, why make murder illegal then? It doesn't stop people so might as well legalize it.
Actually, life in prison and those put to death have the same recidivism rate as to repeat offenders. If your goal is to stop repeat offenders, then life in prison is definitely more cost effective compared to the appeal process involved with executing people. In addition, at the outside chance that the wrong person is convicted, one of those methods is easier to reverse than the other. So, even though I am a conservative, the liberal logic seems spot on.
While texting and driving is illegal in many states, studies show that accidents caused by doing so are higher in states where it's illegal because people who do it hold the phone further away to avoid detection.
Making something illegal does not stop people from doing it.
Would you cite the source of said studies?
What about when you're using it quickly to:
1. Update Trapster about a cop and radar you just passed (not illegal to do)
2. Changing the station on Pandora or switching to a new album to play
Hmm...will it now be illegal for me to use my CB radio? I have a unit that is not handheld, but it isn't mounted so as to be easier to take from car to car as needed...so, is it now a 'portable' electronic device?
Look, we already have perfectly good laws on the books....if you're driving in an impared or reckless manner, they have the ability to pull you over for that.
If you're driving badly, it shouldn't matter what you're doing...and if you're driving ok...leave me the fuck alone.
Well, if this became law, 1 would be illegal, 2 would not be covered by the law (any more than changing tunes on an ipod).
However, even if it doesn't become law, texting and driving is really, really dangerous (and illegal in many states), so 1 is foolish, 2 isn't a problem. Studies show that using a cell phone (talk or text) while driving causes just as much impairment as drinking and driving, so why would it be a problem to have similar laws against it?
We've already sent a bunch of ships to Mars that started in Earths microbe-swarming environment. We've probably already seeded Mars with Earth microbes.
By the time we colonize Mars, it might already be growing enough cheese for us to eat, instead of the native cheese that eats us.
Our microbes need water and can't handle the unshielded surface of Mars. The martian microbes are thought to be living a few kilometers underground.
I'm just pointing out that the poster I remarked to, who was implying the original poster was stupid, didn't have it right, either. Technically speaking, the question had to deal with microbes living in the habitable portion of the crust. Since the size given was based off of the circumference of the Earth, it overstated the habitable crust. To make an accurate comparison, the earth's volume less the water needs to be used. Even that figure, is inaccurate since only a thin layer of the crust is inhabitable by microbes so the differences between Earth and Mars are even less.
The so called 1% you are complaining about representing false precision changes the actual comparison by just under 14%. In addition, that 1% change to the Earth is about equivalent to all of Mars habitable environment. So, I don't think it is introducing false precision at all. However, as I stated, my point was that it isn't as straight forward as the poster said and therefore, the original poster had a valid question.
Nope. Real bad idea.
First off, we need to get off this planet with a base. By doing that, if something DOES happen here, they stand a chance of having humanity survive. But the real issue is that ppl on mars could re-program, re-build, re-think how things were happening. In addition, the amount of science that would flow would be MUCH cheaper than by doing robotic alone. No, we need BOTH there.
You really think that providing a permanent residence on Mars (the original post was about one way only trips) would be cheaper than sending a bunch of robots? It seems that maintaining the international space station is quite costly and it is in orbit versus millions of miles away. Remember, no air, no water, no ozone or magnetic field to ward off radiation, etc. I agree that there are things in space that require human beings, but sending them is usually much, much more expensive than not.
Though a trivial amount of money ($3.41 in November 2011)
Lately, all one hears about is how Mint is more popular than Ubuntu and the top distro on Distrowatch. Well, maybe the trivial amount of money taken through Banshee shows how popular the distro really is.
Since they are talking about habitable / life bearing areas under ground, wouldn't you need to also subtract the volume of water from the total volume of the earth to get an accurate comparison? There is about 1,386,000,000km^3 water on earth, so the Earth /Mars ratio would be 1.93.
In addition, it would actually be cheaper and safer to do the 1-way.
True, but it would be cheapest and safest not to send people at all and just send machines.
That's good news for microbes! Now, when the earth is about to be destroyed by a rogue comet, they can all jump on a ship, head towards Mars, borrow down a few kilometers and survive. For the rest of us, though, it doesn't look too promising.
Shouldn't that title be "Life Possible Under Large Regions of Mars", not "On Large Regions of Mars?"
So, this is how a former blue state, now red, looks at fiscal responsibility?
If you want to admire wasted talent lay off the scientists trying to learn about genetic manipulation which could lead to all sorts of useful things and focus on the truly wasted. A good place to start would be all the talent we devote to trying to sell each other crap.
Except that the genetic manipulation has already occurred. You do remember Dolly the sheep, right? They aren't planning on taking the DNA of an elephant and manipulate it into a woolly mammoth, they are planing on using the same cloning procedures that produced Dolly but using 10,000 year old DNA.