Would it have killed the submitter to clue us in to what Enlightenment is? All I can get from the summary is that it is Linux related and now runs on cell phones. This isn't a telegraph, you're not paying by the letter, and there is nothing wrong with saying "the Enlightenment window manager" instead of just "Enlightenment".
If you dont already know what E17 is then this article isn't really for you anyway. The article is only of any interest to those who have used E17 on their desktop computer and thus might be excited at the prospect of being able to use it on their phone. For everyone else it's really a non-issue.
If you can opt-out then everyone who would usually take a call while driving would opt-out automatically (and continue taking calls whilst driving), thus rendering the device useless? I'm the type of person who doesn't take calls while driving, so theoretically this device would be good for me... except instead I simply use an absolutely tiny amount of self control and not-answer the phone when it rings. After it rings out it automatically diverts to my voicemail.
On a good trip, if I combine it with shifting into neutral for downhill runs, follow large slow-moving vehicles...
My understanding is that it is not beneficial to shift into neutral going down-hill.
When going down hill, you are not applying any throttle and thus you are not providing any petrol to the engine. The engine is turning purely through the connection to the wheels rather than through exploding petrol. If you put it into neutral going down hill, the engine loses the connection to the wheels and thus in order to maintain idle it has to burn petrol. When in gear, the momentum of the car going down hill (gravity) is sufficient to keep the engine from stalling without the need to burn any petrol
That said, I read this on the interwebs, and we all know what that means....
Well..... I AM just a one-person "company". If they are expecting the kind of service from me they receive from an amazon or other major corporation, then maybe I'm not the right fit for that customer. Again, having troy@gmail.com helps weed-out those with unreasonable expectations who might be more headache than they are worth.
I'll put it simply as a business person. If i'm looking for someone to provide a service to me, and I find two potential clients - both with the same skill-set, experience, price - but one has their own domain and one has a gmail, I'll use the one with their own domain.
Why? Am I pedantic? Do I place unrealistic importance on something trivial? No. The reason is that it shows that this second person:
a) has better attention to detail
b) has a better understanding of the business environment and the expectations of the business world
All else being equal they're more likely to understand what the business-world demands from my business and thus they'll be more likely to provide an appropriate service. The person using gmail/yahoo is saying to the world "sure I am very techncially competent, but I have a poor understanding of the demands of a business environment." It's like wearing a suit to a job interview... Putting a suit on and brushing your hair doesn't make you any smarter, but it does tell you're future-boss that you're tuned into the business environment enough to know that wearing a suit is a the norm at an interview. Someone who shows up in clothes that they'd wear to the beach may be technically skilled, but they are also more likely to have incorrect perceptions of what you want.
Excuse me, but it simply is not. Placing your money in a mutual fund that simply follows the index is guaranteed way to earn 10% interest on your investment over time. Clearly there will be fluctuations in the short term, but over time, major stock indexes rise with absolute certainty.
I take it you're not familiar with the stock market crash? Ever heard of the great depression?
As I said above, all investment is a gamble (purely because there is no way for you to be certain exactly what's going to happen in the future). But again, as I said this doesn't mean it's a bad thing. If the risks are properly accounted for and the returns significantly outweigh the risks then investment is a good idea. However, if you invest money that you NEED to live in the future then you ARE gambling those funds, because there's a chance that they wont be there when you need them. A small chance, but a chance nonetheless. It irritates me when a market crashes and I see people on the news having a cry saying "how are we going to afford to retire?!". If you needed those funds then you shouldn't have invested it.
that in Windoze this problem WoN'T even exist. Setting resolution in Windoze is not the huge problem it ALWAYS is in Linux. have I KNOW I have tried it numerous times.
Yeah yeah, blame it on closed source drivers. well, ordinary average people dont give a hoot about closed source drivers and dont even care.
Oh, it is? I just go to the "screen resolution" menu and chose one of literally 40 options, and it changes the resolution for me. I haven't done anything special to allow this, and I didn't specially chose my hardware for linux.
But anyway, my original point was that people expect to start up linux for the first time and for it to be as easy to use as windows. Of COURSE it wont be as easy to use as windows because you have 7+ years experience using windows, and 1 hour experience using linux. Give yourself some time to get used to it and you'll find it easier. I've only been using linux for a year or two (I think) and I already find it easier to use than windows, which I used since at least 3.1, and still use on a daily basis at uni.
I decided to try Ubuntu (my first unix experience) two days ago. I spent two days trying to get it to use a proper aspect ratio for my main monitor and to use my second monitor as anything but a clone of the first monitor. All I could do was the former.
But do you think you'd be able to do that in two days if you had never used windows before in your life? It's a pretty uneven playing field that you're judging it on.
In a small, backwards and somewhat "revolutionary" feeling way, it's a good thing. If they break the DRM and force bluray/dvd to change the keys or ban the players, then the users will be inconvenienced. Although this should be a bad thing, it at least leads to the chance that consumers will rebel against DRM and DRM-free media will gain popularity
But let's say, for sake of argument, that the typical illegal only makes $3.00 an hour picking 30 heads of lettuce. Of course, any monkey can work a lot faster than that, but let's err on the safe side.
That means that, out of the $1.29 I pay for a head of lettuce at my supermarket, only $0.10 goes to pay the worker who picked it.
Now let's say that same guy gets paid $12/hour instead. It'd only be $0.40 to pay the worker who picked it. My cost would increase by $0.30.
This is based on a misunderstanding of business. The main motivator in business and finance is return on investment (ROI). Everyone in the chain puts down a certain amount of money, and wants a certain PERCENTAGE return on it.
Lets say that hypothetically it costs a farmer $0.50 to grow a lettuce, and, using your hypothetical, $0.10 to pick this lettuce. He has now invested $0.60 for this lettuce, and he may want a ROI of 150%. So for every $1 he spends, he wants to make $1.5. For every $0.60 lettuce, he wants to sell it for $0.9.
So he sells it to the distributor for $0.9. This distributor then sells it to the store. The distributor ALSO wants a ROI, of also (for simplicity) 150%. So for the $0.90 he spent, he wants to make $1.35. So he sells it to the store for $1.35
And guess what? The store also wants a ROI of 150%, so for their $1.35 investment they want to make $2.
This all makes sense because everyone wants to make a certain percentage return on their investment of money.
NOW, as per your hypothetical, if the lettuce cost $0.40 to pick then it now cost the farmer $0.50 to grow + $0.40 to pick, or $0.9. The farmer still wants the same ROI, so he wants to make $1.35 for his $0.90 investment. So the distributor pays $1.35, so to maintain his ROI he must sell it to the shop for $2.025. The shop has to keep its ROI too, so the end product now costs $3.03
So you see that an increase in the original stage will cause multiples all along the chain. This is because people want a certain return on their investment, or else they just plain wont invest in that item anymore
A $0.30 price cost increase doesn't make the product cost $0.30 more, it makes it cost $1.68 more. It makes sense: do you really think you could double the cost to produce the item, without doubling the price that its sold for?
Disclaimer: this is in no way intended to be a comment about the immigrant situation in america. I'm not even american.
To bitch about microsoft apparantly. Hello, I am running software on a platform it wasnt designed to run on using new and unstable drivers and I am surprised things are not working as well as on my xp sp2 system! Now I shall submit this grievance to slashdot!
If it's released it should be stable. It's not a beta anymore. Who the hell releases something publically before it actually works? Most products dont work like that, and I dunno why this should be any different. Sure, we're all geeks here so we're used to using software before it's actually stable, but that doesn't mean that Microsoft (or anyone else) should actually publically release it to the non-geek public and expect that to be all cool
am a bit put off by one thing, though - the perception that people who work for the government, at most levels, are too incompotent to work in the 'real world'. I took the job that I did because around 9/11, I felt the need to 'do for my country', blah blah blah. And I think there's a lot of people (from civil service, federal law enforcement, the military, and so on) who feel/felt the same. Course, a few years of the actuality, and working with people who really do think that a lite-bright looks like a bomb... well, either you start turning into one of them, or you get disgusted and look for other employment.
Huh? Didn't you just prove his point? You seemed to just say that most people working for the government are incompetent/stupid, and the few bright people around either leave and work for someone else, or become stupid just like the rest.
As far as Apple vs. Beatles fans... well, sure I like the Beatles and all, but really, nothing is forever, and if Apple Corp can't market their product to the young'uns (and how likely are they to go to a store to buy their parents, nay grandparent's, music?) their future is pretty predictable.
I, too, am a young'un (20) and you'd be mistaken to think that apple corps' product is not marketable to young people. I am a big fan of the beatles and I know many other people around my age who are also big fans and own large portions of their catalogue (and, no, I don't go out seeking people who are also fans).
It'd be a real mistake to think that apple corps is irrelivent. In fact, I'd say I know more people who own beatles albums than people who download music via itunes (however I certainly know more ipod owners than beatles fans)
If they really consider the policy to be a net negative, they'd reverse the policy. You figure out what they really think about the policy and you come to the conclusion that this is just a PR move.
He said "On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative.". My interpretation is that the decision to censor in china hurt their business (ie money making ability), yet the fact that they continue to do it shows that although it causes them to lose money, they think that the moral benefits of their decision outweighs the monetary loss.
Don't forget that, although google censors in china, the search page provides information saying "results on this page have been censored" (not those exact words). The alternative would be for google to not exist in china at all. Some people consider it to be better to censor and tell people that they're censoring than to not be able to exist at all in China (and then people in China could only use search engines which censor but do not alert the user to this).
It could be argued that ABS and stability control help the driver maintain control. Locking up the tires is rarely, if ever a good thing. And unless you're on the track, and need the car to be twitchy, stability control is usually a good thing. Again, it helps the driver stay in control. Your average driver, on average roads, is likely to be out of control in the situations where stability control would take effect. Or, on the verge of going out of control.
For the sake of argument I'd have to say that your average DRUNK driver on average roads is likely to be out of control in the situations where this new system would take effect. Thus, it is similar to ABS and stability control: yes, it takes control out of the hands of the driver, but only when the driver cant effectively control the vehicle itself. It helps the driver "maintain control".
Um maybe it isn't what society deems to be the most important, but what has the most money. I wouldn't be surprised if religion used to have the most money, and then government had the most money, and now business has the most money. It takes money to build big buildings!
Licking, according to established wisdom, defeats the purpose, infects the wound or injury, saliva is full of germs, blah blah blah. Dogs have been around longer than veterinary medicine, and I doubt there's many wild animals that have membership in an HMO. Put another way, they've been doing fine for longer than we know.
er, PEOPLE have existed long before modern medicine also, and likewise we survived for a long time without it. By your line of reasoning, all medical practices relating to humans are BS. This is obviously not true because what you are saying makes no logical sense. Just because dogs survived as a species before modern medicine, this does not mean that modern medicine cannot help to let more of them to live for longer.
You can get arrested for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, even if no one gets hurt or even gets out of their seats. It's called "reckless endangerment", which is what this guy basically did.
In this case there was a fire, and he was just yelling "fire" to alert us all of it. He didn't create the fire (the security hole), nor is he yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists. So you're saying that no one should be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre if it is on fire, because it may scare some people? Better to burn to death than yell "fire" and put it out..
It's illegal to make keys in your little fantasy world?
Someone should be arrested for breaking into your house. It doesn't matter if someone makes all the lockpicks in the world, hard is only done when someone uses it to break into your house. which is already illegal. Why arrest the keymaker also when the harmful act is already illegal?
If your house a lock that can easily broken, be happy when someone informs you about this and take the opportunity to replace your locks. Dont arrest the person who tells you that your locks suck, and shows you a bump key out to indicate why.
be fired, dumped in the gutter, and blackballed from the industry. Why? Because a simple sales call would have accomplished the same thing for a tenth of a percent the cost.
But it wouldn't get on slashdot, would it? Marketing
My parents raised me right, but as a kid I still did some bad things
I dont see why they should be held liable for my actions when they took every reasonable step to make sure I had a good set of morals in place and that I was responsivle. I acted out sometime, Kids will be kids, boys will be boys. It's not their fault.
For what it's worth, I've also switched to Opera after being a fan of Firefox
Firefox may still be gaining a lot of users (from IE I imagine), but I suspect that it is also starting to lose a number of its old users to Opera. Becasue the IE user base is much larger than that of Firefox, it has a larger affect on the numbers when a percentage of IE users move to Firefox than it does when a percentage of Firefox users move to Opera.
Slashdot Mirror
If you dont already know what E17 is then this article isn't really for you anyway. The article is only of any interest to those who have used E17 on their desktop computer and thus might be excited at the prospect of being able to use it on their phone. For everyone else it's really a non-issue.
If you can opt-out then everyone who would usually take a call while driving would opt-out automatically (and continue taking calls whilst driving), thus rendering the device useless? I'm the type of person who doesn't take calls while driving, so theoretically this device would be good for me... except instead I simply use an absolutely tiny amount of self control and not-answer the phone when it rings. After it rings out it automatically diverts to my voicemail.
Per subject..
My understanding is that it is not beneficial to shift into neutral going down-hill.
When going down hill, you are not applying any throttle and thus you are not providing any petrol to the engine. The engine is turning purely through the connection to the wheels rather than through exploding petrol. If you put it into neutral going down hill, the engine loses the connection to the wheels and thus in order to maintain idle it has to burn petrol. When in gear, the momentum of the car going down hill (gravity) is sufficient to keep the engine from stalling without the need to burn any petrol
That said, I read this on the interwebs, and we all know what that means....
Then why dont you fix the issues that you're having rather than passing it onto someone else and then complaining when they dont fix it? ;)
I'll put it simply as a business person. If i'm looking for someone to provide a service to me, and I find two potential clients - both with the same skill-set, experience, price - but one has their own domain and one has a gmail, I'll use the one with their own domain.
Why? Am I pedantic? Do I place unrealistic importance on something trivial? No. The reason is that it shows that this second person:
a) has better attention to detail
b) has a better understanding of the business environment and the expectations of the business world
All else being equal they're more likely to understand what the business-world demands from my business and thus they'll be more likely to provide an appropriate service. The person using gmail/yahoo is saying to the world "sure I am very techncially competent, but I have a poor understanding of the demands of a business environment." It's like wearing a suit to a job interview... Putting a suit on and brushing your hair doesn't make you any smarter, but it does tell you're future-boss that you're tuned into the business environment enough to know that wearing a suit is a the norm at an interview. Someone who shows up in clothes that they'd wear to the beach may be technically skilled, but they are also more likely to have incorrect perceptions of what you want.
I take it you're not familiar with the stock market crash? Ever heard of the great depression?
As I said above, all investment is a gamble (purely because there is no way for you to be certain exactly what's going to happen in the future). But again, as I said this doesn't mean it's a bad thing. If the risks are properly accounted for and the returns significantly outweigh the risks then investment is a good idea. However, if you invest money that you NEED to live in the future then you ARE gambling those funds, because there's a chance that they wont be there when you need them. A small chance, but a chance nonetheless. It irritates me when a market crashes and I see people on the news having a cry saying "how are we going to afford to retire?!". If you needed those funds then you shouldn't have invested it.
All investment is gambling- some is just more risky than others. This doesn't make it a bad thing.
Oh, it is? I just go to the "screen resolution" menu and chose one of literally 40 options, and it changes the resolution for me. I haven't done anything special to allow this, and I didn't specially chose my hardware for linux.
But anyway, my original point was that people expect to start up linux for the first time and for it to be as easy to use as windows. Of COURSE it wont be as easy to use as windows because you have 7+ years experience using windows, and 1 hour experience using linux. Give yourself some time to get used to it and you'll find it easier. I've only been using linux for a year or two (I think) and I already find it easier to use than windows, which I used since at least 3.1, and still use on a daily basis at uni.
But do you think you'd be able to do that in two days if you had never used windows before in your life? It's a pretty uneven playing field that you're judging it on.
In a small, backwards and somewhat "revolutionary" feeling way, it's a good thing. If they break the DRM and force bluray/dvd to change the keys or ban the players, then the users will be inconvenienced. Although this should be a bad thing, it at least leads to the chance that consumers will rebel against DRM and DRM-free media will gain popularity
This is based on a misunderstanding of business. The main motivator in business and finance is return on investment (ROI). Everyone in the chain puts down a certain amount of money, and wants a certain PERCENTAGE return on it.
Lets say that hypothetically it costs a farmer $0.50 to grow a lettuce, and, using your hypothetical, $0.10 to pick this lettuce. He has now invested $0.60 for this lettuce, and he may want a ROI of 150%. So for every $1 he spends, he wants to make $1.5. For every $0.60 lettuce, he wants to sell it for $0.9.
So he sells it to the distributor for $0.9. This distributor then sells it to the store. The distributor ALSO wants a ROI, of also (for simplicity) 150%. So for the $0.90 he spent, he wants to make $1.35. So he sells it to the store for $1.35
And guess what? The store also wants a ROI of 150%, so for their $1.35 investment they want to make $2.
This all makes sense because everyone wants to make a certain percentage return on their investment of money.
NOW, as per your hypothetical, if the lettuce cost $0.40 to pick then it now cost the farmer $0.50 to grow + $0.40 to pick, or $0.9. The farmer still wants the same ROI, so he wants to make $1.35 for his $0.90 investment. So the distributor pays $1.35, so to maintain his ROI he must sell it to the shop for $2.025. The shop has to keep its ROI too, so the end product now costs $3.03
So you see that an increase in the original stage will cause multiples all along the chain. This is because people want a certain return on their investment, or else they just plain wont invest in that item anymore
A $0.30 price cost increase doesn't make the product cost $0.30 more, it makes it cost $1.68 more. It makes sense: do you really think you could double the cost to produce the item, without doubling the price that its sold for?
Disclaimer: this is in no way intended to be a comment about the immigrant situation in america. I'm not even american.
If it's released it should be stable. It's not a beta anymore. Who the hell releases something publically before it actually works? Most products dont work like that, and I dunno why this should be any different. Sure, we're all geeks here so we're used to using software before it's actually stable, but that doesn't mean that Microsoft (or anyone else) should actually publically release it to the non-geek public and expect that to be all cool
Huh? Didn't you just prove his point? You seemed to just say that most people working for the government are incompetent/stupid, and the few bright people around either leave and work for someone else, or become stupid just like the rest.
I, too, am a young'un (20) and you'd be mistaken to think that apple corps' product is not marketable to young people. I am a big fan of the beatles and I know many other people around my age who are also big fans and own large portions of their catalogue (and, no, I don't go out seeking people who are also fans).
It'd be a real mistake to think that apple corps is irrelivent. In fact, I'd say I know more people who own beatles albums than people who download music via itunes (however I certainly know more ipod owners than beatles fans)
He said "On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative.". My interpretation is that the decision to censor in china hurt their business (ie money making ability), yet the fact that they continue to do it shows that although it causes them to lose money, they think that the moral benefits of their decision outweighs the monetary loss.
Don't forget that, although google censors in china, the search page provides information saying "results on this page have been censored" (not those exact words). The alternative would be for google to not exist in china at all. Some people consider it to be better to censor and tell people that they're censoring than to not be able to exist at all in China (and then people in China could only use search engines which censor but do not alert the user to this).
Hyundai are in the top 5 for reliability nowadays I think
Um maybe it isn't what society deems to be the most important, but what has the most money. I wouldn't be surprised if religion used to have the most money, and then government had the most money, and now business has the most money. It takes money to build big buildings!
Licking, according to established wisdom, defeats the purpose, infects the wound or injury, saliva is full of germs, blah blah blah. Dogs have been around longer than veterinary medicine, and I doubt there's many wild animals that have membership in an HMO. Put another way, they've been doing fine for longer than we know.
er, PEOPLE have existed long before modern medicine also, and likewise we survived for a long time without it. By your line of reasoning, all medical practices relating to humans are BS. This is obviously not true because what you are saying makes no logical sense. Just because dogs survived as a species before modern medicine, this does not mean that modern medicine cannot help to let more of them to live for longer.
You can get arrested for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, even if no one gets hurt or even gets out of their seats. It's called "reckless endangerment", which is what this guy basically did.
In this case there was a fire, and he was just yelling "fire" to alert us all of it. He didn't create the fire (the security hole), nor is he yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists. So you're saying that no one should be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre if it is on fire, because it may scare some people? Better to burn to death than yell "fire" and put it out..
It's illegal to make keys in your little fantasy world?
Someone should be arrested for breaking into your house. It doesn't matter if someone makes all the lockpicks in the world, hard is only done when someone uses it to break into your house. which is already illegal. Why arrest the keymaker also when the harmful act is already illegal?
If your house a lock that can easily broken, be happy when someone informs you about this and take the opportunity to replace your locks. Dont arrest the person who tells you that your locks suck, and shows you a bump key out to indicate why.
be fired, dumped in the gutter, and blackballed from the industry. Why? Because a simple sales call would have accomplished the same thing for a tenth of a percent the cost.
But it wouldn't get on slashdot, would it? Marketing
My parents raised me right, but as a kid I still did some bad things
I dont see why they should be held liable for my actions when they took every reasonable step to make sure I had a good set of morals in place and that I was responsivle. I acted out sometime, Kids will be kids, boys will be boys. It's not their fault.
For what it's worth, I've also switched to Opera after being a fan of Firefox
Firefox may still be gaining a lot of users (from IE I imagine), but I suspect that it is also starting to lose a number of its old users to Opera. Becasue the IE user base is much larger than that of Firefox, it has a larger affect on the numbers when a percentage of IE users move to Firefox than it does when a percentage of Firefox users move to Opera.