Live in Pennsylvania. And you realize there are still a lot of poor folk in the rural country.
Guess trailer trash don't deserve phone or internet service?
That was the point I was trying to make. I have no doubt that there are wealthy people who have moved to the country, but for the most part, they are the exception. Now if Warren Buffet wants to move to the country, the taxpayer doesn't need to pay to run copper lines to his house. But don't cut off the poor who really do need the subsidy because of the few wealthy who also get a break because of it.
You state that there are parts of the world that will never be wired, which I don't doubt, but when you are talking about in the US, why? Almost all rural areas are served by electric coops. There is nothing stopping using those same power lines to carry voice/data/media, other than adding filters at the transformers. Of course, the cable and phone companies don't want that to happen. Nor do the ham radio operators who do have a legitimate beef in that using the power lines disrupts ham radio operations. But that could simply be the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or since we are talking about deeply rural areas, the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the even fewer.
The summary states that the program has devolved to poor people in urban areas subsidizing rich people in the country. While that may be true, Would not the rich people in urban areas also be subsidizing the poor people in the country? Last time I checked, urban areas had a lot of people of different classes and while there are definitely some wealthy people in the country, in the vast areas known as fly over country, the wealthy are far and few between. But, if you are talking about the rural areas of CA or NY, well, aren't those really the new suburbs?
I wouldn't be so sure—Microsoft's terrible internal organization and infighting have been discussed at length in the past [slashdot.org], and it's quite reasonable to say that this is the exact problem that makes their products what we despise.
Except that Ballmer has been at the helm for most of that time and ultimately responsible for the organization and infighting as it is part of the corporate culture at Microsoft. That is why most boards bring in a whole new management team when such a top down re-organization is required. Most boards realize that you only get one chance to get it right. That's why you don't let the fox who has been raiding the hen house be the one who reorganizes the hen house. Leaving Balmmer and the rest of the management team in place means that board believes that management isn't the problem, but the workers are. That doesn't bode well for the future of Microsoft as the workers aren't the ones who have created the corporate culture nor are they the ones who have made the company a shadow of what it once was or could have been.
Since when are tablets not PCs? PC=Personal Computer. First PCs were desktops, then there were the portables, like Compaq that were the size of a suitcase. Then we had laptops, then notebooks, then netbooks, and now tablets. Aren't they all personal computers? Or does Gartner's use of PC somehow mean Windows desktop/laptop/notebook/netbook computers only?
In practical terms there are personal computers where the person owns and manages them and there are non-personal computers where somebody else owns and manages them (mini computers, main frames, super computers and arrays come to mind). Whether a personal computer has a keyboard or not is no more a distinguishing factor than whether a car has a manual or automatic transmission.
Sales of personal computers has not declined and is actually accelerating. Sales of personal computers with keyboards is on a decline. In other news, sales of wifi keyboards to use with tablets has been increasing at a steady pace.
I'm confused. Everything supports 3D printing. There's probably a Linux application for it. You just have the company write a driver, install 3D software that works with it, and hit print. The operating system is irrelevant. All they're doing is putting a big "sue me, I have the most money" sign on them with a picture of a 3D printed gun under it. Now they're just getting desperate. I thought 8.1 was a rush fix like Windows 7 from Vista but nope. Hopefully THIS TIME heads will roll and they'll replace clueless morons with reasonable design leads at MS.
As the summary says, Microsoft is trying to get in on the hype of 3D printing. Besides, if they claim it has this "new" feature, maybe they hope people won't realize it is just a service pack.
The Prius is built to MUCH higher crash safety standards than the Pinto or the Nova.
It is also expected to perform better, be much quieter, and last far longer than that old junk. The Pinto and Nova were econoboxes built as cheaply as possible.
Crash safety standards are relative. At highway speeds, it won't matter much which vehicle you are in if it is a large SUV or semi hitting you. Below 20mph, the Nova will sustain less damage than the Prius and have a good chance of still being able to be driven because of the steel under frame of the Nova versus the unibody construction of the Prius. As most accidents occur below 20 mph, the likelihood is that both occupants will fair about the same and the vehicle will be less likely to be totaled if it is a Nova versus a Prius. (But maybe the insurance companies don't know what they are talking about).
You are correct, though, that it isn't a fair comparison with the Nova being an economy family car and the Prius being a luxury compact. As for noise, yes, that electric motor is a lot quieter than the gas motor and the Prius does have better sound insulation for highway noise overall, but most road noise is related to tire and road conditions. As for longevity, a Prius will need new battery packs around 7 years. That is a major expense and the car is useless without them. So one could argue that it doesn't really last longer. And definitely it fails on performance, unless performance means only mpg. However, in terms of acceleration, from 0 to 60, a Nova will out perform a Prius hands down and if you try and make a Prius outperform the Nova, you sacrifice the mpg, the only performance area the Prius wins.
But instead of comparing the Prius to 40 year old cars, compare it to the VW or BMW diesels that get similar mileage (upper 40s) have real performance and don't have costly battery packs that need to be replaced every 7 years.
The Pinto today's dollars also cost 1/3 the price of a Prius.
And would be illegal. Illegal safety equipment, illegal crash worthiness. Illegal. Build the Prius to Pinto standards, and you'll get something like the car that this topic is about.
Pintos are legal to drive today. There is nothing illegal about them. You are correct that you could not build a new one today because of US safety standards, but actually, they are not far off, adding airbags would be pretty close. Having an actual frame means the manufacturer can use shock absorbing bumpers instead of crumple zones. And you would need to add reinforcements in the doors. None of that is insurmountable. Does that mean it would fair as well as a Prius in a crash? Probably not, but then, a Prius doesn't fair as well as a Ford Escape, either.
This programming contests have nothing to do with real world programming or the skills need for most CS fields. Certainly, these are fun algorithmic challenges, but the timed nature of these contests encourage quick and dirty solutions that have no place in the real world.
Could be.
I did really well in these competitions during high school. Now I look back in horror at some of the code I came up with.
What slows me down today is all the second guessing I do now that I know what can go wrong.
There's a parallel in entrepreneurship. Many immigrants in the USA start businesses in part because they just don't know just how vulnerable they are to lawsuits and regulations. Many native citizens are much more cautious for fear of what the legal system or government might do to make their business life more difficult and they sit on the sidelines.
It's possible programmers in other countries are still in that exciting stage where they can code without fear.
Or, it could be that many immigrants in the USA start businesses because they have nothing to lose if they fail and everything to gain if they win. Like a high school kid in a programming contest, what is the penalty for failure? Now, take that immigrant who has made it past a startup or the high school kid is now working as a programmer, there is no longer "nothing to lose" and one has to manage risk. It has nothing to do with the legal system and everything to do with risk/reward.
A fundamental misunderstanding by the non-technical administration and dinosaur faculty. As has been stated before, this is not computer science. I wish the state education boards would place requirements (algorithm and mathematical requirements) on calling programs computer science. We have a CSCI program that teaches Excel, and graphic design (zero algorithms and only basic algebra required). The programming courses do get into structures and sorting a little bit, but the last one I took left off linked lists! (didn't have time)
OTOH, it was within the last year that there was a/. article about major universities wanting to drop all of the math requirements from computer science degrees because it would encourage more people to enter the field. If you view a college as a business, the student as the consumer and the curriculum as the product, you may understand why today's computer science degrees have been so watered down. The CS department, like every other department is evaluated by how many seats they fill, at least on an undergrad level.
So then they shouldn't have called Gnome 3 "Gnome". Just like Microsoft shouldn't have called Windows 8 "Windows".
Not really. After all Gnome 2 is open source. If the the target base for Gnome 3 was different than Gnome 2, there was nothing stopping somebody from picking up the Gnome 2 base and continuing it. Which is what the Mate desktop basically is. The same thing happened with KDE 3 and there is Trinity. However, Trinity has a very small user base compared to the original KDE 3 base and only time will tell if Mate is successful in keeping the Gnome 2 interface alive or not.
Gnome 3 is the third iteration of the Gnome Desktop Environment, there is no reason for it not to include the 3.
What finally did it for me was the "you shouldn't even be allowed to have widgets or themes" attitude of the Gnome devs. I'd tolerated Gnome shell despite its flaws up until then. With that kind of vision, we're eventually going to be very much at odds eventually, as I think Linux is all about options, and I like configuring my desktop to look and work the way *I* want. It's the same as iOS. If you think you'll be always be happy with someone elses' design, then by all means, stick with it, otherwise, get out as soon as you can.
I moved to KDE and wish I'd done so earlier. It's fantastic, and doesn't get the attention it deserves from the Linux community.
I've heard that complaint about the gnome devs, but have yet to find actual evidence of it. It seems that if they really thought that way, they wouldn't have made gnome-shell extensible so that one could change widget and themes. The fact that they didn't build the initial tool to make those changes, while frustrating, is understandable as changing themes was not as high a priority as getting the rest of it working.
As for KDE, yes, it is very good and extensible, too. However, if you had switched earlier, before it stabalized, you would be complaining about it, too, just like the many kde users were when KDE4 came out.
What hurt Gnome 3 the most is the same thing that hurt KDE 4. Distros switched right away to the new versions of both, even though they weren't ready for average users. They should have stuck with Gnome 2 (and KDE 3) for another release or two, but allowed the new versions to be installed. That way, once the initial version 1.0 kinks got worked out, the transition for most users would have been much smoother. Then again, the Gnome and KDE devs don't have much say over what the distros do.
Well personally I ran screaming in horror after the first two hours of flailing around trying to regain something approaching my old workflow. To each his own I suppose.
That's strange, because apt-get install xfce or its equivalent usually only takes about 10 minutes unless you have a really slow connection.
What about the fact that, by default, widgets are so thick, you can barely see any content? When I tried Gnome 3, Gnome 3 was pretty much all I could see. Nothing else would fit on the screen. In Gnome2 and KDE3, vertical resolution of 768 points was still perfectly usable. Now, unless you have >= 1080, you're suffering. Do people with gnu/linux not use their computers to consume/create content? I do. I'm not interested in flicking through dynamic workspaces just to prove I don't need to minimise windows.
Therefore, in my opinion - anybody using Gnome 3 and liking it, is insane. (Yes, my middle name is 'insensitive clod'.)
The original Gnome 3 theme did have a large title bar and extra padding, but that was resolved long ago. Besides, there are a myriad of themes with different sized title bars and widgets to choose from.
As for dynamic workspaces, you can turn those off and use fixed ones, if you like and you can even add back the maximize/minimize buttons. In reality, Gnome 3 is pretty flexible. It's a shame it was released when it was because of outside pressure. If it had matured a little longer so more of the pieces were in place, it probably would have been much better received. KDE4 had the same issue, it's early release wasn't meant for every day use and they lost a lot of users, too.
Light weight cars go crumble on the autobahn. Bad news. I would rather get lower mpg and be safe. Better yet, I minimize travel.
This one is made out of carbon fiber. It also only has a top speed of 78, so it probably won't have a problem with "crumbling" on the autobahn. 1) it's stronger than steel and 2) it doesn't go fast enough for the vibration to be a probelm.
The Prius is built to MUCH higher crash safety standards than the Pinto or the Nova.
It is also expected to perform better, be much quieter, and last far longer than that old junk. The Pinto and Nova were econoboxes built as cheaply as possible.
The Pinto today's dollars also cost 1/3 the price of a Prius. Any of them (Prius, Pinto, Nova) hitting an SUV at freeway speeds won't make much different for the occupants. The Pinto, btw, was Ford's response to the VW Beetle. The Nova, on the other hand was actually a family sedan. Might you mean the Vega?
Given the drag coefficient, I assume this car exhibits Laminar flow. This can get disrupted by external factors (say getting passed by a buss) and result in localized turbulent flow. This would drastically increase the drag on one part of the car, causing a sudden unexpected side load, likely causing a turn (into the passing bus). An airplane bouncing around is not much of an issue, but when your car moves over 6 feet sideways on the freeway unexpectedly, it can be rather bad.
Generally maximally aerodynamic cars are not safe. They may not have gotten to that point, or may have cleverly worked around the issues, but given the lack of side mirrors, I think mileage was the priority over safety here. Its a neat technical feet, but as mentioned in the article, its dangerous in multiple respects.
I drive a 1972 VW beetle as a daily driver. You get used to your car moving over 6 feet sideways on the freeway unexpectedly and come to anticipate it. Before long it is just like operating a clutch, you just don't think about it.:)
What's a mile ? A gallon ? A pound ? Do they use those units in Germany ? This summary only makes sense in Myanmar, Liberia and the US. Was it that hard to convert into proper unit, at least as a complement, as most of us will have to do now ? If you can't bother to adapt to your readership, your readership won't bother adapt to you.
Most of the rest of the world is pretty good at adapting US speak to their usage such as miles and gallons to metric. The problem is when it has to go the other way around. Don't fault our/. overlords because they had to dumb down the summary so those in the US could understand it.
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
But what about all those idiots making claims that "Loud pipes saves lives"? You know, those same guys that don't wear helmets?
They chose to ride an inherently dangerous machine. So dangerous, in fact, that they will make claims that the only thing saving them from an untimely end are exhaust pipes so loud they will blow out the eardrum of an adjacent motorist. Helmets? Nah! It's our freedom to ride without them! Safety? Nah! That's your fucking problem if my bike gives you permanent hearing damage.
No matter how loud or how often somebody makes a claim doesn't make it true. Take loud pipes on a motor cycle, since the most come car/motor cycle accident is where a car pulls out into traffic because they didn't see the motorcycle, loud pipes don't make a difference because the car pulling out is in front of them. But if motorcyclist want to argue that loud pipes make them easier to be noticed, well, so would blaze orange helmets and vests like deer hunters wear.
Basically. The vehicle's so lightly built that a fricking DODGE OMNI will tear through you like you were toilet paper.
Over in Germany, if someone spatters themselves on (or by the side of) the road, it's the driver's fault for not knowing their car.
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
Actually, in most of Europe, vehicle safety is concerned with protecting who you hit, particularly pedestrians versus you the driver or the occupants of the vehicle. That doesn't mean that automakers don't exceed those standards, but that is a priority. VW even admited that their test fleet of these vehicles had to get a special waiver because it didn't have a passenger side air bag.
That said, VW also said not to expect this vehicle in the US as it would not meet US safety standards and would have to be totally re-engineered to do so which would probably kill the high mileage it gets.
If the goal here is to 'save money' or 'save resources' by having a high MPG/k/L, I don't really get the point of these 'ultra safe' cars.
I'm sorry, but I've seen dozens of what would've been considered 'minor fender benders' even 10 years ago result in the vehicles being irreparably totaled. I've personally been hit twice where the other late-model vehicle was put on a flatbed and (likely) scrapped: in both instances, I barely even noticed the impact in my 1980s-vintage vehicle, I had -maybe- $250 in total body damage each time, and nobody was hurt. These modern cars, to the exception of full size trucks, seem to lose pieces if they hit so much as a slightly sticky traffic cone. Considering the cost and resources that go into making them, and how easily they're totalled, I can't see this as a win for anyone but the automotive makers and insurers (through larger premiums).
New cars are designed that way on purpose. They have built in crumple zones to absorb the energy of an impact. The problem is that the impact zone can't differentiate between a 25 mph hit and a 60mph hit and crumples either way, totalling the car. That's the official answer. Of course, there are those that believe that since a large percentage of cars will be in sub 25mph fender benders and get totalled, it guarantees new vehicle sales.
Personally, though, if I'm going to be in an accident, I'd rather the vehicle absorb the impact and crumple instead of my body. Then again, I try and avoid accidents to begin with.
1.6l engine, 48hp, 1753 lbs sounds a lot like my 72 beetle that has a 1600cc engine 54hp and weighed 1800 lbs. Of course, it only gets 27mpg around town and about 32 on the highway, Besides, it's fun to drive by the school yards and watch the kids all punch each other in the arm and yell "Slug bug!"
After further reading, the lemstift pen is nothing like a livescribe. It doesn't store or transmit documents and doesn't appear that it is intended to do anything more than to work on penmanship, spelling and grammar. Too bad, at $145US per pen, there aren't going to be many school kids who can afford such a device. Something at that price point that made up for the shortcomings of livescribe, might catch the attention of business purchasers, however.
Slashdot Mirror
Live in Pennsylvania. And you realize there are still a lot of poor folk in the rural country.
Guess trailer trash don't deserve phone or internet service?
That was the point I was trying to make. I have no doubt that there are wealthy people who have moved to the country, but for the most part, they are the exception. Now if Warren Buffet wants to move to the country, the taxpayer doesn't need to pay to run copper lines to his house. But don't cut off the poor who really do need the subsidy because of the few wealthy who also get a break because of it.
You state that there are parts of the world that will never be wired, which I don't doubt, but when you are talking about in the US, why? Almost all rural areas are served by electric coops. There is nothing stopping using those same power lines to carry voice/data/media, other than adding filters at the transformers. Of course, the cable and phone companies don't want that to happen. Nor do the ham radio operators who do have a legitimate beef in that using the power lines disrupts ham radio operations. But that could simply be the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or since we are talking about deeply rural areas, the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the even fewer.
The summary states that the program has devolved to poor people in urban areas subsidizing rich people in the country. While that may be true, Would not the rich people in urban areas also be subsidizing the poor people in the country? Last time I checked, urban areas had a lot of people of different classes and while there are definitely some wealthy people in the country, in the vast areas known as fly over country, the wealthy are far and few between. But, if you are talking about the rural areas of CA or NY, well, aren't those really the new suburbs?
I wouldn't be so sure—Microsoft's terrible internal organization and infighting have been discussed at length in the past [slashdot.org], and it's quite reasonable to say that this is the exact problem that makes their products what we despise.
Except that Ballmer has been at the helm for most of that time and ultimately responsible for the organization and infighting as it is part of the corporate culture at Microsoft. That is why most boards bring in a whole new management team when such a top down re-organization is required. Most boards realize that you only get one chance to get it right. That's why you don't let the fox who has been raiding the hen house be the one who reorganizes the hen house. Leaving Balmmer and the rest of the management team in place means that board believes that management isn't the problem, but the workers are. That doesn't bode well for the future of Microsoft as the workers aren't the ones who have created the corporate culture nor are they the ones who have made the company a shadow of what it once was or could have been.
Since when are tablets not PCs? PC=Personal Computer. First PCs were desktops, then there were the portables, like Compaq that were the size of a suitcase. Then we had laptops, then notebooks, then netbooks, and now tablets. Aren't they all personal computers? Or does Gartner's use of PC somehow mean Windows desktop/laptop/notebook/netbook computers only?
In practical terms there are personal computers where the person owns and manages them and there are non-personal computers where somebody else owns and manages them (mini computers, main frames, super computers and arrays come to mind). Whether a personal computer has a keyboard or not is no more a distinguishing factor than whether a car has a manual or automatic transmission.
Sales of personal computers has not declined and is actually accelerating. Sales of personal computers with keyboards is on a decline. In other news, sales of wifi keyboards to use with tablets has been increasing at a steady pace.
I'm confused. Everything supports 3D printing. There's probably a Linux application for it. You just have the company write a driver, install 3D software that works with it, and hit print. The operating system is irrelevant. All they're doing is putting a big "sue me, I have the most money" sign on them with a picture of a 3D printed gun under it. Now they're just getting desperate. I thought 8.1 was a rush fix like Windows 7 from Vista but nope. Hopefully THIS TIME heads will roll and they'll replace clueless morons with reasonable design leads at MS.
As the summary says, Microsoft is trying to get in on the hype of 3D printing. Besides, if they claim it has this "new" feature, maybe they hope people won't realize it is just a service pack.
The Prius is built to MUCH higher crash safety standards than the Pinto or the Nova.
It is also expected to perform better, be much quieter, and last far longer than that old junk. The Pinto and Nova were econoboxes built as cheaply as possible.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness
The Prius is also carrying a hefty battery pack.
Crash safety standards are relative. At highway speeds, it won't matter much which vehicle you are in if it is a large SUV or semi hitting you. Below 20mph, the Nova will sustain less damage than the Prius and have a good chance of still being able to be driven because of the steel under frame of the Nova versus the unibody construction of the Prius. As most accidents occur below 20 mph, the likelihood is that both occupants will fair about the same and the vehicle will be less likely to be totaled if it is a Nova versus a Prius. (But maybe the insurance companies don't know what they are talking about).
You are correct, though, that it isn't a fair comparison with the Nova being an economy family car and the Prius being a luxury compact. As for noise, yes, that electric motor is a lot quieter than the gas motor and the Prius does have better sound insulation for highway noise overall, but most road noise is related to tire and road conditions. As for longevity, a Prius will need new battery packs around 7 years. That is a major expense and the car is useless without them. So one could argue that it doesn't really last longer. And definitely it fails on performance, unless performance means only mpg. However, in terms of acceleration, from 0 to 60, a Nova will out perform a Prius hands down and if you try and make a Prius outperform the Nova, you sacrifice the mpg, the only performance area the Prius wins.
But instead of comparing the Prius to 40 year old cars, compare it to the VW or BMW diesels that get similar mileage (upper 40s) have real performance and don't have costly battery packs that need to be replaced every 7 years.
The Pinto today's dollars also cost 1/3 the price of a Prius.
And would be illegal. Illegal safety equipment, illegal crash worthiness. Illegal. Build the Prius to Pinto standards, and you'll get something like the car that this topic is about.
Pintos are legal to drive today. There is nothing illegal about them. You are correct that you could not build a new one today because of US safety standards, but actually, they are not far off, adding airbags would be pretty close. Having an actual frame means the manufacturer can use shock absorbing bumpers instead of crumple zones. And you would need to add reinforcements in the doors. None of that is insurmountable. Does that mean it would fair as well as a Prius in a crash? Probably not, but then, a Prius doesn't fair as well as a Ford Escape, either.
Could be.
I did really well in these competitions during high school. Now I look back in horror at some of the code I came up with.
What slows me down today is all the second guessing I do now that I know what can go wrong.
There's a parallel in entrepreneurship. Many immigrants in the USA start businesses in part because they just don't know just how vulnerable they are to lawsuits and regulations. Many native citizens are much more cautious for fear of what the legal system or government might do to make their business life more difficult and they sit on the sidelines.
It's possible programmers in other countries are still in that exciting stage where they can code without fear.
Or, it could be that many immigrants in the USA start businesses because they have nothing to lose if they fail and everything to gain if they win. Like a high school kid in a programming contest, what is the penalty for failure? Now, take that immigrant who has made it past a startup or the high school kid is now working as a programmer, there is no longer "nothing to lose" and one has to manage risk. It has nothing to do with the legal system and everything to do with risk/reward.
A fundamental misunderstanding by the non-technical administration and dinosaur faculty. As has been stated before, this is not computer science. I wish the state education boards would place requirements (algorithm and mathematical requirements) on calling programs computer science. We have a CSCI program that teaches Excel, and graphic design (zero algorithms and only basic algebra required). The programming courses do get into structures and sorting a little bit, but the last one I took left off linked lists! (didn't have time)
OTOH, it was within the last year that there was a /. article about major universities wanting to drop all of the math requirements from computer science degrees because it would encourage more people to enter the field. If you view a college as a business, the student as the consumer and the curriculum as the product, you may understand why today's computer science degrees have been so watered down. The CS department, like every other department is evaluated by how many seats they fill, at least on an undergrad level.
So then they shouldn't have called Gnome 3 "Gnome". Just like Microsoft shouldn't have called Windows 8 "Windows".
Not really. After all Gnome 2 is open source. If the the target base for Gnome 3 was different than Gnome 2, there was nothing stopping somebody from picking up the Gnome 2 base and continuing it. Which is what the Mate desktop basically is. The same thing happened with KDE 3 and there is Trinity. However, Trinity has a very small user base compared to the original KDE 3 base and only time will tell if Mate is successful in keeping the Gnome 2 interface alive or not.
Gnome 3 is the third iteration of the Gnome Desktop Environment, there is no reason for it not to include the 3.
What finally did it for me was the "you shouldn't even be allowed to have widgets or themes" attitude of the Gnome devs. I'd tolerated Gnome shell despite its flaws up until then. With that kind of vision, we're eventually going to be very much at odds eventually, as I think Linux is all about options, and I like configuring my desktop to look and work the way *I* want. It's the same as iOS. If you think you'll be always be happy with someone elses' design, then by all means, stick with it, otherwise, get out as soon as you can.
I moved to KDE and wish I'd done so earlier. It's fantastic, and doesn't get the attention it deserves from the Linux community.
I've heard that complaint about the gnome devs, but have yet to find actual evidence of it. It seems that if they really thought that way, they wouldn't have made gnome-shell extensible so that one could change widget and themes. The fact that they didn't build the initial tool to make those changes, while frustrating, is understandable as changing themes was not as high a priority as getting the rest of it working.
As for KDE, yes, it is very good and extensible, too. However, if you had switched earlier, before it stabalized, you would be complaining about it, too, just like the many kde users were when KDE4 came out.
What hurt Gnome 3 the most is the same thing that hurt KDE 4. Distros switched right away to the new versions of both, even though they weren't ready for average users. They should have stuck with Gnome 2 (and KDE 3) for another release or two, but allowed the new versions to be installed. That way, once the initial version 1.0 kinks got worked out, the transition for most users would have been much smoother. Then again, the Gnome and KDE devs don't have much say over what the distros do.
Well personally I ran screaming in horror after the first two hours of flailing around trying to regain something approaching my old workflow. To each his own I suppose.
That's strange, because apt-get install xfce or its equivalent usually only takes about 10 minutes unless you have a really slow connection.
What about the fact that, by default, widgets are so thick, you can barely see any content? When I tried Gnome 3, Gnome 3 was pretty much all I could see. Nothing else would fit on the screen. In Gnome2 and KDE3, vertical resolution of 768 points was still perfectly usable. Now, unless you have >= 1080, you're suffering.
Do people with gnu/linux not use their computers to consume/create content? I do. I'm not interested in flicking through dynamic workspaces just to prove I don't need to minimise windows.
Therefore, in my opinion - anybody using Gnome 3 and liking it, is insane.
(Yes, my middle name is 'insensitive clod'.)
The original Gnome 3 theme did have a large title bar and extra padding, but that was resolved long ago. Besides, there are a myriad of themes with different sized title bars and widgets to choose from.
As for dynamic workspaces, you can turn those off and use fixed ones, if you like and you can even add back the maximize/minimize buttons. In reality, Gnome 3 is pretty flexible. It's a shame it was released when it was because of outside pressure. If it had matured a little longer so more of the pieces were in place, it probably would have been much better received. KDE4 had the same issue, it's early release wasn't meant for every day use and they lost a lot of users, too.
Light weight cars go crumble on the autobahn. Bad news. I would rather get lower mpg and be safe. Better yet, I minimize travel.
This one is made out of carbon fiber. It also only has a top speed of 78, so it probably won't have a problem with "crumbling" on the autobahn. 1) it's stronger than steel and 2) it doesn't go fast enough for the vibration to be a probelm.
The Prius is built to MUCH higher crash safety standards than the Pinto or the Nova.
It is also expected to perform better, be much quieter, and last far longer than that old junk. The Pinto and Nova were econoboxes built as cheaply as possible.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness
The Prius is also carrying a hefty battery pack.
The Pinto today's dollars also cost 1/3 the price of a Prius. Any of them (Prius, Pinto, Nova) hitting an SUV at freeway speeds won't make much different for the occupants. The Pinto, btw, was Ford's response to the VW Beetle. The Nova, on the other hand was actually a family sedan. Might you mean the Vega?
Given the drag coefficient, I assume this car exhibits Laminar flow. This can get disrupted by external factors (say getting passed by a buss) and result in localized turbulent flow. This would drastically increase the drag on one part of the car, causing a sudden unexpected side load, likely causing a turn (into the passing bus). An airplane bouncing around is not much of an issue, but when your car moves over 6 feet sideways on the freeway unexpectedly, it can be rather bad.
Generally maximally aerodynamic cars are not safe. They may not have gotten to that point, or may have cleverly worked around the issues, but given the lack of side mirrors, I think mileage was the priority over safety here. Its a neat technical feet, but as mentioned in the article, its dangerous in multiple respects.
I drive a 1972 VW beetle as a daily driver. You get used to your car moving over 6 feet sideways on the freeway unexpectedly and come to anticipate it. Before long it is just like operating a clutch, you just don't think about it. :)
What's a mile ? A gallon ? A pound ? Do they use those units in Germany ? This summary only makes sense in Myanmar, Liberia and the US. Was it that hard to convert into proper unit, at least as a complement, as most of us will have to do now ? If you can't bother to adapt to your readership, your readership won't bother adapt to you.
Most of the rest of the world is pretty good at adapting US speak to their usage such as miles and gallons to metric. The problem is when it has to go the other way around. Don't fault our /. overlords because they had to dumb down the summary so those in the US could understand it.
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
But what about all those idiots making claims that "Loud pipes saves lives"? You know, those same guys that don't wear helmets?
They chose to ride an inherently dangerous machine. So dangerous, in fact, that they will make claims that the only thing saving them from an untimely end are exhaust pipes so loud they will blow out the eardrum of an adjacent motorist. Helmets? Nah! It's our freedom to ride without them! Safety? Nah! That's your fucking problem if my bike gives you permanent hearing damage.
No matter how loud or how often somebody makes a claim doesn't make it true. Take loud pipes on a motor cycle, since the most come car/motor cycle accident is where a car pulls out into traffic because they didn't see the motorcycle, loud pipes don't make a difference because the car pulling out is in front of them. But if motorcyclist want to argue that loud pipes make them easier to be noticed, well, so would blaze orange helmets and vests like deer hunters wear.
Basically. The vehicle's so lightly built that a fricking DODGE OMNI will tear through you like you were toilet paper.
Over in Germany, if someone spatters themselves on (or by the side of) the road, it's the driver's fault for not knowing their car.
Here in the US, it's the manufacturer's fault for not making the car crash-survivable.
Actually, in most of Europe, vehicle safety is concerned with protecting who you hit, particularly pedestrians versus you the driver or the occupants of the vehicle. That doesn't mean that automakers don't exceed those standards, but that is a priority. VW even admited that their test fleet of these vehicles had to get a special waiver because it didn't have a passenger side air bag.
That said, VW also said not to expect this vehicle in the US as it would not meet US safety standards and would have to be totally re-engineered to do so which would probably kill the high mileage it gets.
Why are the USA still not using them?
Because Jimmy Carter only served one term and Ronald Regan didn't like the metric system.
If the goal here is to 'save money' or 'save resources' by having a high MPG/k/L, I don't really get the point of these 'ultra safe' cars.
I'm sorry, but I've seen dozens of what would've been considered 'minor fender benders' even 10 years ago result in the vehicles being irreparably totaled. I've personally been hit twice where the other late-model vehicle was put on a flatbed and (likely) scrapped: in both instances, I barely even noticed the impact in my 1980s-vintage vehicle, I had -maybe- $250 in total body damage each time, and nobody was hurt. These modern cars, to the exception of full size trucks, seem to lose pieces if they hit so much as a slightly sticky traffic cone. Considering the cost and resources that go into making them, and how easily they're totalled, I can't see this as a win for anyone but the automotive makers and insurers (through larger premiums).
New cars are designed that way on purpose. They have built in crumple zones to absorb the energy of an impact. The problem is that the impact zone can't differentiate between a 25 mph hit and a 60mph hit and crumples either way, totalling the car. That's the official answer. Of course, there are those that believe that since a large percentage of cars will be in sub 25mph fender benders and get totalled, it guarantees new vehicle sales.
Personally, though, if I'm going to be in an accident, I'd rather the vehicle absorb the impact and crumple instead of my body. Then again, I try and avoid accidents to begin with.
The concept car is real wheel drive with rear engine, similar to the origianl VW although it isn't aircooled.
1.6l engine, 48hp, 1753 lbs sounds a lot like my 72 beetle that has a 1600cc engine 54hp and weighed 1800 lbs. Of course, it only gets 27mpg around town and about 32 on the highway, Besides, it's fun to drive by the school yards and watch the kids all punch each other in the arm and yell "Slug bug!"
After further reading, the lemstift pen is nothing like a livescribe. It doesn't store or transmit documents and doesn't appear that it is intended to do anything more than to work on penmanship, spelling and grammar. Too bad, at $145US per pen, there aren't going to be many school kids who can afford such a device. Something at that price point that made up for the shortcomings of livescribe, might catch the attention of business purchasers, however.