is not that they're moving back to Windows, but that they're moving back to Windows XP. I could understand it better if it were WIndows 7. Although they'll inevitably upgrade at some point, it seems a lot of hassle to go back to an inferior operating system for a transitional period.
The reason I think Windows 7 would make more sense than XP (aside from all the support and security issues), is that Windows 7 really does offer something that neither KDE nor Gnome do which is a very simple and easy to manage environment. I like both Windows 7 and my KDE desktop running on Gentoo. I like Windows 7 because it is really slick. I like my Linux box because it's powerful, has all the tools I need to do advance things I like to do. The trouble is that someone like me is an edge case. I wouldn't want to see KDE or Gnome attempt to emulate Windows so much that they lost the powerfulness that I like about them (KDE more than Gnome is my preference mind you). But similarly, I think you couldn't fully incorporate the power of Linux into Windows 7 without losing some of that slickness and simplicity. There seems to be a natural divide between the two where either attempting to bring in the qualities of the other is likely to spoil some of the good stuff. And unfortunately the German FO users are going to be the sort of users who want slick simplicity, rather than crunching power. I say unfortunately, because Windows will cost them more.
What extra hours of daylight? In winter I wake up in dark, travel in dark and just when I get the office the sun might decide to get over the horizon and give us a bit of light, that is if there are no clouds. Worse in the evenings. There are months where I almost don't see any sunlight apart from the weekends.
This move is an excellent idea, at least I can use the evenings productively.
This move wouldn't affect Winter which stays on GMT just as it always has. It only affects Summer time which is when you would have extra hours of sunlight before being plunged into an office.
I'm curious. I can see that in some situations you can already anticipate putting forward the truth is going to upset people, but don't you think that someone's statements being true is a strong defence against assigning them blame for a reaction? I base this on a belief that truth is a valuable aim and therefore in instances of upset, normally side against those that prefer falsehoods.
On the other hand it's useful for those outside of the USA. If I'm told someone lives in Michigan, I don't want to have to prowl the Internet to work out what time it is there. I want to just click a city and add it to the drop down list of time zones I have in my clock. For example, if I hover over the clock on my KDE desktop, it pops up a list of around ten different cities. When I know I'm on the phone to someone in Michigan, I just look at the clock and I see it. I don't have to hit Wikipedia while I'm talking to them and I certainly don't want to have to start memorizing USA geography along with everything else.
I think they're wanting BST to be GMT+2 (Ie, CEST) and Normal time to be GMT + 1 (Ie, CET)
we would, basically, be moving to Central European Time.
However, this can be vetoed by the Scottish Parliment. I hope it does, or else we'll be having dawn at 9am during winter.
I agree - this should never get off the drawing board. Basically it takes as an assumption that nobody does anything useful in the morning before work. Some of us happen to like the extra hours of daylight in the morning before work because it gives us a chance to go for a run, or work on our own projects or fit in a decent breakfast or whatever.
Most of us wake up more easily and naturally with the daylight than before sunrise, so Summer means extra time and energy for us. The UK government seems to think that's free productivity that they can tap into for the sake of its economy.
They want their children to be at a standard ideal to them but which they're too weak to achieve - or maybe they feel they don't need to achieve it as long as the children do;
They do want their kids to be like them: hypocrites who are well able to condemn some act and hide all evidence of engaging in it, despite doing that very thing behind closed doors.
True. And often there's a bit of both. For me, spying on someone is too active a decision to really put it in with the first one as a failing you wish you could avoid. It's not really the same thing as failing to eat the last piece of chocolate cake or failing not to raise your voice and get angry. Where the line is drawn, there lies the debate. For me the line is quite clear between keylogging and not, but you may differ.
A bunch of childless geeks and fringe case parents who only want their children to be like them in some ways can whine all they want, but this is what parents want. It's as inevitable as human nature.
Most parents don't actually want their child to be how they are. They actually want that child to be like how they think they are. For example, most dads may condemn their child for looking at porn on the Internet, but do so themselves. They might not demonstrate trust and put a keylogger on the child's computer, but they'd be pretty freaked if the child showed the same lack of trust and put a keylogger on their computer and spied on them.
Parents keylogging their children like this are probably hypocrites as they would not want their child to behave in the same way. But children seldom turn out how their parents want them to be and more often how their parents are. The best way to teach a child a behaviour is to behave that way yourself.
when going out the door I'd call out "going out for a few hours, if not back avenge death."
I would be so proud of a child of mine that came up with that. Seriously, the main thing these parents will teach their children is it's okay to spy on people and they shouldn't trust their parents (and that their parents don't trust them).
Not only that, but there are two further qualifiers: One is that possibly radio-waves aren't the best way of communicating. Maybe there's some fancy quantum-entanglement doo-dad that we're right around the corner from discovering and which civilisations almost always progress to once they pass radio waves. Granted, it seems unlikely to us, but how would we know from where we are. Second idea is that sufficiently advanced civilisations tend not to waste power by needlessly broadcasting massive amounts of radio waves into space. We bounce ours off satellites. Maybe they do the same only even more efficiently. Maybe they all use focused lasers with really good aim. Maybe their planets become super-wired with fibre-grids and satellite relay becomes the less efficient option. Again, there ought to be some leakage, but it could cut down on the amount of transmission considerably. The phase during which a civilisation broadcasts Hitler opening the Olympic games (reference to the film Contact), could be a very, very narrow window in the grand scheme of things.
They gave a Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger. If that's not evidence of a sense of humour, nothing is.
And the awarding of the Peace Prize to Obama was widely criticized as devaluing it. He was awarded it for saying that he was going to engage in more conciliatory international relations. Awarding politicians for what they promise to do is a bad, bad idea, imo.
Any winner of this prize will not have done so using the same technology as in 1970. They will be pushing forward research and furthermore, any competitor in this project will not be doing so solely for the $30 million. They'll be expecting to make profits from the project independently of that.
Assuming that you're not pretending to misunderstand, the concept of Squick fits the bill nicely. There, you've had your education. Other people see things differently and you need to tolerate their viewpoints, because they're just as valid as yours.
The "squick" link just says it's "a negative emotional response, more specifically a disturbed or disgusted one". We knew that was the response. My question is to why it was felt. And I never said someone else couldn't see things as differently - that's entirely your own invention. What I have asked is why someone should have a "disturbed or disgusted" reaction (if that is what it is), to a naked man. I have no such reaction so I'm curious as to where such a reaction should come from in some people.
Well if that were really the case, he wouldn't even need to make himself appear human, and certainly not need to flaunt his e(nergy)-penis.
The lack of clothes (and other things) show his increasing detachment from humanity, not that he has instantly become a Lovecraftian horror in one night.
It's all starting to make sense, now. The entity calling itself "CmdrTaco" is one of those energy beings from the Start Trek "Day of the Dove" episode, feeding on the strife it creates.
Or he gets ad revenues based on page hits, but yours is good too.;)
I think it sums up everything wrong with Watchman, the whole film seemed to be trying to be edgy to an unnecessary degree.
What did seeing it do? The story for Dr M already showed him disconnected from reality several well aimed shots could easily show he was naked without having to see a bare ass or penis.
See, to me I have to question why you're starting from the position of his nudity having to be done for the sake of "edginess" or why other ways of showing his increasing detachment could be used without "having to see a bare ass or penis". You've taken for granted that we should not see such things without there being a special reason for it, and in the case of Watchman where there is a reason for it, you've expressed that another way of satisfying that reason should have been found. Implicit in your argument is an assumption that his nudity is a bad thing that should only be included in special circumstances. Whereas from my point of view, it's a complete non-issue not requiring any justification. What I'm curious about is why you see it differently.
I would hope that Watchmen got its 'R' rating for all the violence in it, not because it had a naked man in it. Then again, I'm European and possibly things are different in the USA.
I'm not against seeing things that are giant and / or blue, but I prefer my movies without penis shots. Call me crazy.
Genuine question: Why do you care? This comes up everytime the Watchmen movie is discussed and I just don't get it. I watched the whole film without any particular reaction to his dick. It's just a dick.
However, there was no need for a full frontal Dr. Manhattan.
I simply do not get at all why people get hung up about this. The guy can't be bothered with clothes anymore and nobody dares to tell him otherwise anymore. What's the issue?
I wasn't very happy about the altered ending or the removal of the guy reading the comic book.
The original ending of the comic book was a bit too goofy. The film improved on it quite a bit, imo. I also can't really see what the comic book sub-story really added. I mostly skipped over that when I read the comic.
The "hoax" was likely a real protest by an employee who what affected by the decision. Many of those who fanned the plan b flame, were likely frustrated by the decision as well, hoping that a sane reconsideration could result from support of such a protest.
If it was a real employee, rather than nine shareholders in Nokia who were actually making a bid for leadership, then there's no reason to put "hoax" in quotation marks as you did. It was a hoax. And a pretty obvious one.
A decision by Nokia to use MS's phone O/S means a fair number of people at Nokia will no longer be needed. Of course there will be protests. How much they have to do with technical criticisms of putting WP7 on Nokia phones is a debatable matter.
Slashdot was too eager to stir up some more flamewars to look into it. Really, it only took a moment to look at the article and see that there were things wrong with it. Sadly, few people did.
Slashdot Mirror
is not that they're moving back to Windows, but that they're moving back to Windows XP. I could understand it better if it were WIndows 7. Although they'll inevitably upgrade at some point, it seems a lot of hassle to go back to an inferior operating system for a transitional period.
The reason I think Windows 7 would make more sense than XP (aside from all the support and security issues), is that Windows 7 really does offer something that neither KDE nor Gnome do which is a very simple and easy to manage environment. I like both Windows 7 and my KDE desktop running on Gentoo. I like Windows 7 because it is really slick. I like my Linux box because it's powerful, has all the tools I need to do advance things I like to do. The trouble is that someone like me is an edge case. I wouldn't want to see KDE or Gnome attempt to emulate Windows so much that they lost the powerfulness that I like about them (KDE more than Gnome is my preference mind you). But similarly, I think you couldn't fully incorporate the power of Linux into Windows 7 without losing some of that slickness and simplicity. There seems to be a natural divide between the two where either attempting to bring in the qualities of the other is likely to spoil some of the good stuff. And unfortunately the German FO users are going to be the sort of users who want slick simplicity, rather than crunching power. I say unfortunately, because Windows will cost them more.
Wow! It's even more stupid than I thought. Thanks for the correction. Now where's Guy Fawkes when you need him?
What extra hours of daylight? In winter I wake up in dark, travel in dark and just when I get the office the sun might decide to get over the horizon and give us a bit of light, that is if there are no clouds. Worse in the evenings. There are months where I almost don't see any sunlight apart from the weekends.
This move is an excellent idea, at least I can use the evenings productively.
This move wouldn't affect Winter which stays on GMT just as it always has. It only affects Summer time which is when you would have extra hours of sunlight before being plunged into an office.
Protip: The two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm curious. I can see that in some situations you can already anticipate putting forward the truth is going to upset people, but don't you think that someone's statements being true is a strong defence against assigning them blame for a reaction? I base this on a belief that truth is a valuable aim and therefore in instances of upset, normally side against those that prefer falsehoods.
On the other hand it's useful for those outside of the USA. If I'm told someone lives in Michigan, I don't want to have to prowl the Internet to work out what time it is there. I want to just click a city and add it to the drop down list of time zones I have in my clock. For example, if I hover over the clock on my KDE desktop, it pops up a list of around ten different cities. When I know I'm on the phone to someone in Michigan, I just look at the clock and I see it. I don't have to hit Wikipedia while I'm talking to them and I certainly don't want to have to start memorizing USA geography along with everything else.
I think they're wanting BST to be GMT+2 (Ie, CEST) and Normal time to be GMT + 1 (Ie, CET) we would, basically, be moving to Central European Time.
However, this can be vetoed by the Scottish Parliment. I hope it does, or else we'll be having dawn at 9am during winter.
I agree - this should never get off the drawing board. Basically it takes as an assumption that nobody does anything useful in the morning before work. Some of us happen to like the extra hours of daylight in the morning before work because it gives us a chance to go for a run, or work on our own projects or fit in a decent breakfast or whatever.
Most of us wake up more easily and naturally with the daylight than before sunrise, so Summer means extra time and energy for us. The UK government seems to think that's free productivity that they can tap into for the sake of its economy.
This could be seen two ways:
True. And often there's a bit of both. For me, spying on someone is too active a decision to really put it in with the first one as a failing you wish you could avoid. It's not really the same thing as failing to eat the last piece of chocolate cake or failing not to raise your voice and get angry. Where the line is drawn, there lies the debate. For me the line is quite clear between keylogging and not, but you may differ.
A bunch of childless geeks and fringe case parents who only want their children to be like them in some ways can whine all they want, but this is what parents want. It's as inevitable as human nature.
Most parents don't actually want their child to be how they are. They actually want that child to be like how they think they are. For example, most dads may condemn their child for looking at porn on the Internet, but do so themselves. They might not demonstrate trust and put a keylogger on the child's computer, but they'd be pretty freaked if the child showed the same lack of trust and put a keylogger on their computer and spied on them.
Parents keylogging their children like this are probably hypocrites as they would not want their child to behave in the same way. But children seldom turn out how their parents want them to be and more often how their parents are. The best way to teach a child a behaviour is to behave that way yourself.
when going out the door I'd call out "going out for a few hours, if not back avenge death."
I would be so proud of a child of mine that came up with that. Seriously, the main thing these parents will teach their children is it's okay to spy on people and they shouldn't trust their parents (and that their parents don't trust them).
Seriously fucked up.
Not only that, but there are two further qualifiers: One is that possibly radio-waves aren't the best way of communicating. Maybe there's some fancy quantum-entanglement doo-dad that we're right around the corner from discovering and which civilisations almost always progress to once they pass radio waves. Granted, it seems unlikely to us, but how would we know from where we are. Second idea is that sufficiently advanced civilisations tend not to waste power by needlessly broadcasting massive amounts of radio waves into space. We bounce ours off satellites. Maybe they do the same only even more efficiently. Maybe they all use focused lasers with really good aim. Maybe their planets become super-wired with fibre-grids and satellite relay becomes the less efficient option. Again, there ought to be some leakage, but it could cut down on the amount of transmission considerably. The phase during which a civilisation broadcasts Hitler opening the Olympic games (reference to the film Contact), could be a very, very narrow window in the grand scheme of things.
Heh. That was funny!
They gave a Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger. If that's not evidence of a sense of humour, nothing is.
And the awarding of the Peace Prize to Obama was widely criticized as devaluing it. He was awarded it for saying that he was going to engage in more conciliatory international relations. Awarding politicians for what they promise to do is a bad, bad idea, imo.
Any winner of this prize will not have done so using the same technology as in 1970. They will be pushing forward research and furthermore, any competitor in this project will not be doing so solely for the $30 million. They'll be expecting to make profits from the project independently of that.
Yes, men in America aren't usually into naked men.
Yeah, and men in Europe aren't usually disturbed by naked men either. You see nakedness every time you get changed at the gym for example.
Assuming that you're not pretending to misunderstand, the concept of Squick fits the bill nicely. There, you've had your education. Other people see things differently and you need to tolerate their viewpoints, because they're just as valid as yours.
The "squick" link just says it's "a negative emotional response, more specifically a disturbed or disgusted one". We knew that was the response. My question is to why it was felt. And I never said someone else couldn't see things as differently - that's entirely your own invention. What I have asked is why someone should have a "disturbed or disgusted" reaction (if that is what it is), to a naked man. I have no such reaction so I'm curious as to where such a reaction should come from in some people.
Well if that were really the case, he wouldn't even need to make himself appear human, and certainly not need to flaunt his e(nergy)-penis.
The lack of clothes (and other things) show his increasing detachment from humanity, not that he has instantly become a Lovecraftian horror in one night.
It's all starting to make sense, now. The entity calling itself "CmdrTaco" is one of those energy beings from the Start Trek "Day of the Dove" episode, feeding on the strife it creates.
Or he gets ad revenues based on page hits, but yours is good too. ;)
Or more accurately: "Because I don't understand his point of view, I asked him to explain it."
I think it sums up everything wrong with Watchman, the whole film seemed to be trying to be edgy to an unnecessary degree. What did seeing it do? The story for Dr M already showed him disconnected from reality several well aimed shots could easily show he was naked without having to see a bare ass or penis.
See, to me I have to question why you're starting from the position of his nudity having to be done for the sake of "edginess" or why other ways of showing his increasing detachment could be used without "having to see a bare ass or penis". You've taken for granted that we should not see such things without there being a special reason for it, and in the case of Watchman where there is a reason for it, you've expressed that another way of satisfying that reason should have been found. Implicit in your argument is an assumption that his nudity is a bad thing that should only be included in special circumstances. Whereas from my point of view, it's a complete non-issue not requiring any justification. What I'm curious about is why you see it differently.
I would hope that Watchmen got its 'R' rating for all the violence in it, not because it had a naked man in it. Then again, I'm European and possibly things are different in the USA.
I'm not against seeing things that are giant and / or blue, but I prefer my movies without penis shots. Call me crazy.
Genuine question: Why do you care? This comes up everytime the Watchmen movie is discussed and I just don't get it. I watched the whole film without any particular reaction to his dick. It's just a dick.
However, there was no need for a full frontal Dr. Manhattan.
I simply do not get at all why people get hung up about this. The guy can't be bothered with clothes anymore and nobody dares to tell him otherwise anymore. What's the issue?
I wasn't very happy about the altered ending or the removal of the guy reading the comic book.
The original ending of the comic book was a bit too goofy. The film improved on it quite a bit, imo. I also can't really see what the comic book sub-story really added. I mostly skipped over that when I read the comic.
The "hoax" was likely a real protest by an employee who what affected by the decision. Many of those who fanned the plan b flame, were likely frustrated by the decision as well, hoping that a sane reconsideration could result from support of such a protest.
If it was a real employee, rather than nine shareholders in Nokia who were actually making a bid for leadership, then there's no reason to put "hoax" in quotation marks as you did. It was a hoax. And a pretty obvious one. A decision by Nokia to use MS's phone O/S means a fair number of people at Nokia will no longer be needed. Of course there will be protests. How much they have to do with technical criticisms of putting WP7 on Nokia phones is a debatable matter.
Slashdot was too eager to stir up some more flamewars to look into it. Really, it only took a moment to look at the article and see that there were things wrong with it. Sadly, few people did.