> Most collisions (note: not "accidents") that involve > a motorcycle and where the rider of the bike was > not at fault involve a driver who failed to see or > notice the bike.
Unfortunately, it's in several dictionaries, widely used, and therefore not a "mistake".
It is, however, a common mistake to think that a language is formal system with consistent logic and permanent rules, whilst in reality it's predicated on the usage of those who speak it.
flounder [intransitive verb, 2] Etymology: probably alteration of founder 1 : to struggle to move or obtain footing : thrash about wildly 2 : to proceed or act clumsily or ineffectually from www.m-w.com
Art & craft can't really be differentiated on the basis of "artistic vision" alone, since that is not always known, and is anyway judged and reinvented by its audience, without which any "artistic vision" is meaningless. Neither can they be differentiated because of being "commercial" or "technical": all art comes from the mastery of the technical, which could range from painting, or understanding how to evoke specific emotions via a modern art installation, and historically, much of what we call art was created under contract.
You might even say that the art arises because of the limitations under which it's created.
An architect might consider designing an important museum to be art, and a suburban house mere craft, but the fundamental difference between them is the scope, the audience, and the expectation, rather than the fundamentals of the field. So with photography, or graphic design.
Perhaps projects instantly recognizable as art are yet to come.
Since the human population is larger now than at any preceding time, and the human race will be obliterated eventually, an individual who predicts doom now is at least more likely to be correct than preceding doom-sayers. Although they're still more likely to be wrong than right.
What a surprise, since he was presumably working for SuSE in the first place because they pay him. So with virtually everyone working for virtually all software companies.
It is perfectly possible to build a system where the typical user won't ever need to see/bin, \Windows\System32 etc., which either doesn't require X or builds on top of it, and which is no more difficult for a "computer retard" than a Windows system. OSX, for example.
What, _specifically_, rules out the Linux kernel or Unix-like systems in general as good candidates for desktop systems, and what _specifically_ are the advantages of the kernel of your unnamedpreferred desktop system?
The XBox uses a stripped derivative of the Windows 2000 kernel running on substantially similar hardware to the average PC. So I guess you mean cross-platform as in Windows. Not cross-platform.
Re:Missing the point of CMYK?
on
Gimp Hits 2.0
·
· Score: 1
$5000 is not a lot of coding time, but might get you one man-month of a lower-tier contractor. This money doesn't include, for example, fixed costs such as a workstation, compiler, or the cost of searching, hiring, contracts etc, so you wouldn't expect to get off with paying pro-rata the same as a full-time employee.
Do you really think that's enough?
IOW you won't see PhotoShop-like CMYK support developed for $5,000 for much the same reason that you probably don't build your own car from parts.
So, according to your definition, even Windows isn't a GUI as the menus are generally at the top of their parent window. And plenty of GUIs exist without either movable or overlapping windows- take my phone, for example.
Has it occurred to you that your definition might be broken?
The OS can do a lot of things for a game, if the game-maker chooses to make use of its facilities. Most PC game developers seem to be quite happy to use the OS APIs for file I/O, HID support, audio codecs & device access, video codecs, display/3D, font rendering, comms and so on.
It was simply better to keep MSDOS out of the way since it only helped with the first [and back in the day, you could write a boot-disk game if you didn't want that either].
It's not really that simple these days. Good luck rewriting OpenGL, device drivers, reinventing TrueType etc. on time and within budget. And remember, your competitors won't be spending their budget on developing an in-house TCP/IP stack.
If you don't like a new distribution, don't use it. New distros & new users != forcing you to use it/users to abandon your distribution.
Or should all things you don't, personally, want not exist because you'd prefer [desktop] Linux to remain a niche OS used mainly by computing professionals & students?
Non-geeks might actually want to do useful work, and maybe even have dinner with their family, rather than changing their Linux distribution daily/weekly/monthly. OTOH the mere existence of applications, interfaces and/or modes that make things easier for newbies doesn't necessitate removing any existing ones, or preventing advanced users from accessing them. I'm sure you'd have no trouble finding them either.
Those same non-geeks represent the majority of desktop OS users, and the majority of the desktop spend.
So can't you imagine why Linux users other than yourself might want more users, more mainstream acceptance, more development, more support, and generally, a healthy hardware, software & support ecology flourishing around Linux?
Suppose intelligent life was found. Will it believe that the universe was created by a deity compatible with the Christian god? Would Christians (A) find that a messiah had been sent to each, or (B) start convincing them that their human messiah is relevant to them too, and they should become Christians?
The reason that there is nothing in Christian theology that would be "seriously upset" is because few take it seriously or think of its implications, and those that do both tend to wave their hands whenever it's questioned.
Slashdot Mirror
> Most collisions (note: not "accidents") that involve
> a motorcycle and where the rider of the bike was
> not at fault involve a driver who failed to see or
> notice the bike.
Well, like, duh...
Brain injuries, brain scans et al might lead one to believe, quite reasonably, that consciousness is indeed closely linked with the brain.
Unfortunately, it's in several dictionaries, widely used, and therefore not a "mistake".
It is, however, a common mistake to think that a language is formal system with consistent logic and permanent rules, whilst in reality it's predicated on the usage of those who speak it.
flounder [intransitive verb, 2]
Etymology: probably alteration of founder
1 : to struggle to move or obtain footing : thrash about wildly
2 : to proceed or act clumsily or ineffectually
from www.m-w.com
Art & craft can't really be differentiated on the basis of "artistic vision" alone, since that is not always known, and is anyway judged and reinvented by its audience, without which any "artistic vision" is meaningless. Neither can they be differentiated because of being "commercial" or "technical": all art comes from the mastery of the technical, which could range from painting, or understanding how to evoke specific emotions via a modern art installation, and historically, much of what we call art was created under contract.
You might even say that the art arises because of the limitations under which it's created.
An architect might consider designing an important museum to be art, and a suburban house mere craft, but the fundamental difference between them is the scope, the audience, and the expectation, rather than the fundamentals of the field. So with photography, or graphic design.
Perhaps projects instantly recognizable as art are yet to come.
Since the human population is larger now than at any preceding time, and the human race will be obliterated eventually, an individual who predicts doom now is at least more likely to be correct than preceding doom-sayers. Although they're still more likely to be wrong than right.
Another interesting thing is that your objection to that particular use of the word "rape" in that context is incorrect, since it also means stealing.
Perhaps you should ask rape victims if you are entitled to speak for them about what they might find objectionable.
A reasonable assumption, given Microsoft's position in the industry and the business strategy/marketing that got them there.
What a surprise, since he was presumably working for SuSE in the first place because they pay him. So with virtually everyone working for virtually all software companies.
Which is also, funnily enough, where your definition of "clean" comes from.
It is perfectly possible to build a system where the typical user won't ever need to see /bin, \Windows\System32 etc., which either doesn't require X or builds on top of it, and which is no more difficult for a "computer retard" than a Windows system. OSX, for example.
What, _specifically_, rules out the Linux kernel or Unix-like systems in general as good candidates for desktop systems, and what _specifically_ are the advantages of the kernel of your unnamedpreferred desktop system?
Only on /. would someone equating the crime of piracy with copyright infringement take exception to such an analogy.
Sure, because as we all know, the cost of manufacturing a device is directly proportional to the one metric that's most important to you, personally.
Another could easily argue that the DoJ would have actually fined an EU company.
The XBox uses a stripped derivative of the Windows 2000 kernel running on substantially similar hardware to the average PC. So I guess you mean cross-platform as in Windows. Not cross-platform.
Yeah, right, where's the cite?
$5000 is not a lot of coding time, but might get you one man-month of a lower-tier contractor. This money doesn't include, for example, fixed costs such as a workstation, compiler, or the cost of searching, hiring, contracts etc, so you wouldn't expect to get off with paying pro-rata the same as a full-time employee.
Do you really think that's enough?
IOW you won't see PhotoShop-like CMYK support developed for $5,000 for much the same reason that you probably don't build your own car from parts.
So, according to your definition, even Windows isn't a GUI as the menus are generally at the top of their parent window. And plenty of GUIs exist without either movable or overlapping windows- take my phone, for example.
Has it occurred to you that your definition might be broken?
You seem to have omitted your definition of "legitimate".
The OS can do a lot of things for a game, if the game-maker chooses to make use of its facilities. Most PC game developers seem to be quite happy to use the OS APIs for file I/O, HID support, audio codecs & device access, video codecs, display/3D, font rendering, comms and so on.
It was simply better to keep MSDOS out of the way since it only helped with the first [and back in the day, you could write a boot-disk game if you didn't want that either].
It's not really that simple these days. Good luck rewriting OpenGL, device drivers, reinventing TrueType etc. on time and within budget. And remember, your competitors won't be spending their budget on developing an in-house TCP/IP stack.
So what? How does that affect you?
If you don't like a new distribution, don't use it. New distros & new users != forcing you to use it/users to abandon your distribution.
Or should all things you don't, personally, want not exist because you'd prefer [desktop] Linux to remain a niche OS used mainly by computing professionals & students?
Non-geeks might actually want to do useful work, and maybe even have dinner with their family, rather than changing their Linux distribution daily/weekly/monthly. OTOH the mere existence of applications, interfaces and/or modes that make things easier for newbies doesn't necessitate removing any existing ones, or preventing advanced users from accessing them. I'm sure you'd have no trouble finding them either.
Those same non-geeks represent the majority of desktop OS users, and the majority of the desktop spend.
So can't you imagine why Linux users other than yourself might want more users, more mainstream acceptance, more development, more support, and generally, a healthy hardware, software & support ecology flourishing around Linux?
With no marketing, how is anyone going to know about it?
So? It's not too hard to imagine a scenario where someone fills up their car with lemonade.
The PS2 is fast enough to be a supercomputer, just not a contemporary one, since it's a moving target. Unfortunately, so are marketing people.
Suppose intelligent life was found. Will it believe that the universe was created by a deity compatible with the Christian god? Would Christians (A) find that a messiah had been sent to each, or (B) start convincing them that their human messiah is relevant to them too, and they should become Christians?
The reason that there is nothing in Christian theology that would be "seriously upset" is because few take it seriously or think of its implications, and those that do both tend to wave their hands whenever it's questioned.