How big is your family? We have 3 kids, and live in 1200 square feet house currently, and it is perfectly fine. In most of the world, people live in much smaller spaces.
Thank you! Among all the different social networking sites, online fora, etc, I have yet to see one that would in my opinion compare favorably to USENET.
I guess the problem is how to get the good properties of USENET without all the spam that killed it.
OK, I will bite. Just some of the reasons I like multiple windows better:
* Multiple windows actually do not cover as much screen space as a single window, so I can have several GIMP windows arranged with several other programs, and use them together.
* With a good window manager, it is easier to hide and show individual components of the program. Windows can iconify or shade at a key-press or mouse click.
* I can send some windows to different virtual desktop. I can make my toolboxes sticky, and put one image on each virtual desktop, and easily switch between them.
* I can tear of a frequently used menu and arrange it on the screen next to my toolbox, or where ever I want it.
* If I have multiple monitors, I can put some windows on one of them, and others on another.
* With some window managers, I can make some windows translucent, so you can see what's behind them. That way I can cram more stuff on a small monitor.
Most of these I actually use with GIMP all the time. I am not saying that GIMP user interface is perfect, but the multiple window interface in my opinion is not a problem. In general I think that for a sufficiently complicated program a multiple window interface is vastly superior to a single window one.
One think I really miss in GIMP is an ability to easily create my own custom toolboxes and menus where I could place frequently used operations for different types of work. Right now I have to constantly hunt for things in the ever expanding menu structure.
If you look at almost any modern totalitarian system, you can see some initial growth. That's partly because at the beginning, each such regime has a support of fairly large part of the population, who is willing to sacrifice things for the success of the new system, and because the rest of the population is simply forced to sacrifice things for the success of the new system. In the cases where the country was economically in very bad shape prior the arrival of the new regime, there can even be quite a bit of growth, while if you look at some countries that became totalitarian while relatively prosperous, the initial growth is much smaller or even nonexistent. In all cases, though, the initial growth was always followed by long years of stagnation and decay, as long as the regime stayed in place.
Look, this is like if you slowly chip at a building for 40 or 50 years, neglecting to do any maintenance, letting it rot, ripping out wires and pipes from the walls, occasionally patching the worst holes with plaster that does not stay there more than two months, and then abandon the building right before it collapses. Then a new owner comes in and attempts to save the collapsing building by some understandably rash measures, but fails. You then go and blame the new owner for the collapse.
The reason communism fell was because it lost support of pretty much everybody save few fanatical die-hards. In the late 80's, everybody who looked at the state of the economy and the prospects down the road in the eastern Europe simply ran away screaming, and there was nobody left to support the system. When even the organized crime (read KGB and other local intel agencies) abandoned the Party, it was all over.
Actually, for 1000 servers, I would much rather work with CLI than GUI, provided the servers are represented by well designed names, so I can group them together into logical groups by using regular expressions or even simple pattern matching on the names.
Of course I can imagine a well designed GUI, where I could see the 1000 servers represented in some sort of visual way, perhaps as nodes on a graph that would also display connections between them, and where I could, with just a keypress, change the way they are displayed and grouped, and where I could, without using a mouse, type in a regular expression or a pattern that would select a group of them and show me which one of them are selected, etc.
True, but the problem is, the boundary is not sharp. For example, balancing color of a photo is something I would definitely consider editing, since I want to see how the image looks like, and trusting the machine to decide what the color balance should be sometimes works, but often it doesn't. On the other hand, I am often in a situation where I have 50 photos of the same subject or similar subjects, taken in the exact same light conditions. Once I decide what the color balance should be on the first photo, it is generally safe to delegate the rest of the work to the machine. So I want an interface that will let me do that in an easy way. I have not yet seen a gui that would do what I need in this situation.
Another example: I want to shorten a file that by inspecting it and deleting unnecessary content. I open it in vim and look at it. I realize that I can safely remove every line that is 2 lines below a line that contains the word "blah" or "bloh". In vim, I have a direct access to a command line that will easily let me do this. I consider that a well designed user interface, since it does not force the separation between what you call modifying and editing.
I believe this is a very good point. Lot of arguments for teaching algebra to everybody are centered about the fact that while you are learning algebra, you learn logical reasoning. That is true if the course is well taught, but you also have to learn a lot of material that many people will never need. And, if it is poorly taught, as it often is, you will learn nothing except couple of memorized formulas that you will forget couple weeks later.
For those students who do need the material covered in Algebra 2, learning logic before taking algebra 2 would, I believe, be very beneficial. Many students who have serious trouble with algebra have actually trouble with logic and reading. The class as you describe it would help tremendously with both.
The problem with that is not everybody is the same. Students who find challenging abstract problems more interesting than practical problems will find that kind of problems boring, and will grow up hating math. The main problem with that is, this is exactly that type of students who should actually major in math.
You are right, though, that most "stock story problems" in math textbooks are horrible, as they are actually uninteresting for both types of students. They pretend to be applied problems, which will drive away the more abstract minded, but they are actually artificial, which will be quickly recognized by more practical oriented students. The result is catastrophic: more abstract minded students are either driven away from math altogether, or get the (mistaken) impression that while math is cool, its applications are boring and demented, while more practical minded students will come to the conclusion that math is simply boring and useless.
You have a good point. The problem is, if the test is implemented in such a way that you will, as you say, really have to know the material damn well, large number of students will find the exam to hard, you will end up with high failure rates, resulting in a huge public outcry against the test, and the test will end up being scrapped.
there's very little in statistics that requires more than Algebra I.
Actually, a large chunk of statistics requires multivariable calculus, and some of it even measure theory, but if you are talking about introductory statistics, than yes, introductory algebra is all you need.
"Supported" does not mean "proven". The theory we are discussing has (as most theories do) at least two parts. There are some assumptions, and some conclusion is drawn from the assumptions. While numerical simulation cannot be used to verify the assumptions, as it will necessarily be based on those assumptions, it may do two things:
1) If you run the simulation based on your assumption and it agrees into large extent with experimental data, I would say that the simulation supported the assumptions. It does not prove them, the same as with statistics, you cannot prove your null hypothesis. However, it would give the assumptions some degree of plausibility. Like in statistics, you would say that based on the simulation, you fail to reject the assumptions. You can hardly hope for anything better than that in a scientific theory.
2) The theory in question claims to draw some conclusions from the assumptions (again, most theories do that). If a simulation or an experiment based on the assumptions behaves according to the conclusion, it demonstrates that the conclusion *could* follow from the assumptions. Again, this provides certain degree of support for the theory, although it does not prove it. The only way how you could prove this part would be by providing a logical proof that the conclusion must follow from the assumptions, but even then, you would be counting on the consistency of the axiomatic system you use in your proof.
What I am trying to say is that in general it is impossible to *prove* a theory. You can only falsify it. So any well conducted experiment or simulation that fails to falsify a theory can be thought of as "supporting" the theory.
The things that wouldn't support it were all tucked away on our inside network
I didn't read the article, but I wonder is this is exactly what it is about. The summary mentioned the use of mobile devices. I wonder if it goes like this: bring a phone to a building, manage to connect to a purely secured wireless network, find a device that has port 23 open,..., profit!
Of course, if you van get to it from the wireless network, it is not really safely tucked away.
So by your logic someone who uses a website that is hosted on a Win server is a Windows user even if they access it from a Linux box? No wonder people have a hard time understanding where you're coming from.
If you telnet into a Unix box and run a program there, would you say you are not a Unix user? Does the protocol make that much difference?
Slashdot Mirror
What is the point of automating opening the door in the first place?
How big is your family? We have 3 kids, and live in 1200 square feet house currently, and it is perfectly fine. In most of the world, people live in much smaller spaces.
Our politicians just tend to have other priorities, such as being self-serving waste's of space.
Do you really think politicians in other countries are different?
It smells like goblins. Eat it?
that the Culinary Institute of America had classified cookbooks.
Thank you! Among all the different social networking sites, online fora, etc, I have yet to see one that would in my opinion compare favorably to USENET.
I guess the problem is how to get the good properties of USENET without all the spam that killed it.
OK, I will bite. Just some of the reasons I like multiple windows better:
* Multiple windows actually do not cover as much screen space as a single window, so I can have several GIMP windows arranged with several other programs, and use them together.
* With a good window manager, it is easier to hide and show individual components of the program. Windows can iconify or shade at a key-press or mouse click.
* I can send some windows to different virtual desktop. I can make my toolboxes sticky, and put one image on each virtual desktop, and easily switch between them.
* I can tear of a frequently used menu and arrange it on the screen next to my toolbox, or where ever I want it.
* If I have multiple monitors, I can put some windows on one of them, and others on another.
* With some window managers, I can make some windows translucent, so you can see what's behind them. That way I can cram more stuff on a small monitor.
Most of these I actually use with GIMP all the time. I am not saying that GIMP user interface is perfect, but the multiple window interface in my opinion is not a problem. In general I think that for a sufficiently complicated program a multiple window interface is vastly superior to a single window one.
One think I really miss in GIMP is an ability to easily create my own custom toolboxes and menus where I could place frequently used operations for different types of work. Right now I have to constantly hunt for things in the ever expanding menu structure.
If you look at almost any modern totalitarian system, you can see some initial growth. That's partly because at the beginning, each such regime has a support of fairly large part of the population, who is willing to sacrifice things for the success of the new system, and because the rest of the population is simply forced to sacrifice things for the success of the new system. In the cases where the country was economically in very bad shape prior the arrival of the new regime, there can even be quite a bit of growth, while if you look at some countries that became totalitarian while relatively prosperous, the initial growth is much smaller or even nonexistent. In all cases, though, the initial growth was always followed by long years of stagnation and decay, as long as the regime stayed in place.
Look, this is like if you slowly chip at a building for 40 or 50 years, neglecting to do any maintenance, letting it rot, ripping out wires and pipes from the walls, occasionally patching the worst holes with plaster that does not stay there more than two months, and then abandon the building right before it collapses. Then a new owner comes in and attempts to save the collapsing building by some understandably rash measures, but fails. You then go and blame the new owner for the collapse.
The reason communism fell was because it lost support of pretty much everybody save few fanatical die-hards. In the late 80's, everybody who looked at the state of the economy and the prospects down the road in the eastern Europe simply ran away screaming, and there was nobody left to support the system. When even the organized crime (read KGB and other local intel agencies) abandoned the Party, it was all over.
Actually, for 1000 servers, I would much rather work with CLI than GUI, provided the servers are represented by well designed names, so I can group them together into logical groups by using regular expressions or even simple pattern matching on the names.
Of course I can imagine a well designed GUI, where I could see the 1000 servers represented in some sort of visual way, perhaps as nodes on a graph that would also display connections between them, and where I could, with just a keypress, change the way they are displayed and grouped, and where I could, without using a mouse, type in a regular expression or a pattern that would select a group of them and show me which one of them are selected, etc.
True, but the problem is, the boundary is not sharp. For example, balancing color of a photo is something I would definitely consider editing, since I want to see how the image looks like, and trusting the machine to decide what the color balance should be sometimes works, but often it doesn't. On the other hand, I am often in a situation where I have 50 photos of the same subject or similar subjects, taken in the exact same light conditions. Once I decide what the color balance should be on the first photo, it is generally safe to delegate the rest of the work to the machine. So I want an interface that will let me do that in an easy way. I have not yet seen a gui that would do what I need in this situation.
Another example: I want to shorten a file that by inspecting it and deleting unnecessary content. I open it in vim and look at it. I realize that I can safely remove every line that is 2 lines below a line that contains the word "blah" or "bloh". In vim, I have a direct access to a command line that will easily let me do this. I consider that a well designed user interface, since it does not force the separation between what you call modifying and editing.
I believe this is a very good point. Lot of arguments for teaching algebra to everybody are centered about the fact that while you are learning algebra, you learn logical reasoning. That is true if the course is well taught, but you also have to learn a lot of material that many people will never need. And, if it is poorly taught, as it often is, you will learn nothing except couple of memorized formulas that you will forget couple weeks later.
For those students who do need the material covered in Algebra 2, learning logic before taking algebra 2 would, I believe, be very beneficial. Many students who have serious trouble with algebra have actually trouble with logic and reading. The class as you describe it would help tremendously with both.
The problem with that is not everybody is the same. Students who find challenging abstract problems more interesting than practical problems will find that kind of problems boring, and will grow up hating math. The main problem with that is, this is exactly that type of students who should actually major in math.
You are right, though, that most "stock story problems" in math textbooks are horrible, as they are actually uninteresting for both types of students. They pretend to be applied problems, which will drive away the more abstract minded, but they are actually artificial, which will be quickly recognized by more practical oriented students. The result is catastrophic: more abstract minded students are either driven away from math altogether, or get the (mistaken) impression that while math is cool, its applications are boring and demented, while more practical minded students will come to the conclusion that math is simply boring and useless.
You have a good point. The problem is, if the test is implemented in such a way that you will, as you say, really have to know the material damn well, large number of students will find the exam to hard, you will end up with high failure rates, resulting in a huge public outcry against the test, and the test will end up being scrapped.
there's very little in statistics that requires more than Algebra I.
Actually, a large chunk of statistics requires multivariable calculus, and some of it even measure theory, but if you are talking about introductory statistics, than yes, introductory algebra is all you need.
a
What do you want to apply?
l
In which direction?
j
The mumak is blinded by the flash! The mumak turns to flee!
Wow, I feel so much more secure now that they have stopped this dangerous terrorist from endangering my country!
... so I clearly cannot choose the wine in front of me!
I bet they are going to put Linux on them a build a giant cluster.
Oh, wait...
In theory practice and theory ought to be the same. In practice, they usually aren't.
In other words, this theory has been falsified and needs to be replaced by a new one.
"Supported" does not mean "proven". The theory we are discussing has (as most theories do) at least two parts. There are some assumptions, and some conclusion is drawn from the assumptions. While numerical simulation cannot be used to verify the assumptions, as it will necessarily be based on those assumptions, it may do two things:
1) If you run the simulation based on your assumption and it agrees into large extent with experimental data, I would say that the simulation supported the assumptions. It does not prove them, the same as with statistics, you cannot prove your null hypothesis. However, it would give the assumptions some degree of plausibility. Like in statistics, you would say that based on the simulation, you fail to reject the assumptions. You can hardly hope for anything better than that in a scientific theory.
2) The theory in question claims to draw some conclusions from the assumptions (again, most theories do that). If a simulation or an experiment based on the assumptions behaves according to the conclusion, it demonstrates that the conclusion *could* follow from the assumptions. Again, this provides certain degree of support for the theory, although it does not prove it. The only way how you could prove this part would be by providing a logical proof that the conclusion must follow from the assumptions, but even then, you would be counting on the consistency of the axiomatic system you use in your proof.
What I am trying to say is that in general it is impossible to *prove* a theory. You can only falsify it. So any well conducted experiment or simulation that fails to falsify a theory can be thought of as "supporting" the theory.
The things that wouldn't support it were all tucked away on our inside network
I didn't read the article, but I wonder is this is exactly what it is about. The summary mentioned the use of mobile devices. I wonder if it goes like this: bring a phone to a building, manage to connect to a purely secured wireless network, find a device that has port 23 open, ..., profit!
Of course, if you van get to it from the wireless network, it is not really safely tucked away.
Small software companies don't make office software, and individuals definitely don't if they are interested in being at all relevant
I am not sure if you will judge this to be relevant, but individuals can for example write conversion filters such as docbook2docx, lyx2docx etc.
So by your logic someone who uses a website that is hosted on a Win server is a Windows user even if they access it from a Linux box? No wonder people have a hard time understanding where you're coming from.
If you telnet into a Unix box and run a program there, would you say you are not a Unix user? Does the protocol make that much difference?
Keerist in a bucket! I like pictures of ships...
Sailboats or schooners?