Maybe someone has already made this point, but perhaps we can extend the computer analogy inherent in the title of this article and deal with preemptive versus cooperative multitasking.
I believe the article is discussing only preemptive multitasking, in the sense that in the middle of doing one task, you will suddenly have your attention grabbed by some stimulus.
On the other hand, perhaps cooperative multitasking isn't so bad. In this sense, you might get to a logical break in the work and then switch to another task (eg, check your e-mail quickly).
Assuming that the only way you interact with the system is the GUI. There's plenty of server processes that I would like to survive even if the GUI crashes. And yes, even on a non-server machine: I will often SSH into my desktop from a laptop. If my wife is watching a movie on the desktop and the whole GUI crashes, I don't lose my work.
..., just kidding, don't really do that. I did have a point for this troll: if someone posts code and tells you to run it, don't do it if you don't understand what you're running
Nokia could get out of developing QT, but someone else would move into the niche and undercut the prices of their proprietary replacement. It is simply too hot of a business opportunity to be ignored right now. Maybe the companies dumping money into QT development would go down for a while without Nokia's support, or maybe they would go up because people see an opportunity to make money. Either way, Nokia trying to use it as leverage is not going to get them too far.
Actually, only the copyright owner (now Nokia, since they bought out Trolltech) could make a proprietary release of Qt due to the GPL.
Cause the mods have tried firefox 3? I've been annoyed by firefox 2 in the past, but since I started using firefox 3 (both at work on Windows and at home on Linux) I have no complaints.
No, I think he was saying that it's better than IE6. The original question (from his users) was why not to migrate from IE6 to IE7. And I think, feature-wise, IE7 *does* beat IE6.
Thank you for actually providing links. I don't know the story of Rachel Corrie. As far as Matan Vilnai, two points: 1) I doubt you speak Hebrew. The word "shoah" can be used in other contexts (as the BBC article points out). 2) I really don't care what a politician calls it.
As far as the Geneva conventions: they don't apply here at all, since Geneva conventions only apply to two nations that abide by it. I think I hear what you're saying: the Palestinians are incapable of respecting the conventions, and therefore Israel should treat them as if they did. I would agree, except for one thing: even when the Palestinians have the ability to follow the Geneva conventions (not firing from civilian areas, not torturing captured soldiers, etc) they do not.
I equate them when people are still in the houses, as has been repeatedly documented.
And you're going to provide a link to those documents, right? Because I've never heard of that happening.
I don't seek to justify the disgusting actions of Hamas, merely state that I find Israel's response unacceptable, counter-productive and results in many infant deaths as well
What part of the response is unacceptable? You don't like Israel sending rockets back at the launch sites?
Yes, Hamas shoots rockets from "civilian areas".
Good, we agree on the fact-in-point. Now let's extend this a little farther: Palestinian civilian deaths would drop dramatically if Hamas stopped this practice.
Also, it's rather tough to Godwin yourself on the subject when Israel's own Defence Minister claims he is orchestrating a Holocaust, big-H.
I'd like a link for that also, as I simply don't buy it. And even if he did say that, it doesn't make it true; I have very little respect for the opinions of politicians.
1) I'm not entirely sure I understand how either side's rockets are concealing their identity as combatants when they come sailing over the horizon.
The Hamas terrorists are shooting the rockets from civilian areas.
2) All Israeli citizens are required to serve time in the military. Hamas seem rather low on funds for nice uniforms.
Even if we follow that absurd thinking, how does that justify the murder of children?
3) Hamas blow up people sitting in cafés near military barracks. Israel bulldozes the houses around where the bomber lived.
That you can morally equate those two at all is disgusting. I needn't even address your factual inaccuracies; were what you said true, you think that murdering civilians is the same as bulldozing houses? Not to Godwin's Law this thing, but I think the Nazis also had a similar value for human life.
A Jewish soldier shoots and kills a few Muslims boys playing football
I'm assuming you actually have a story to back that up. And based upon the context, I'm sure you mean that the Israeli purposely targeted the Muslim boys just for fun, and that the Israeli government didn't immediately apologize for the unfortunate loss of life.
Seriously, how you can make any comparison between a country targeting terrorists and accidentally killing the civilians those terrorists are hiding amongst, and people purposely targeting civilians is beyond me.
Want an example of this hypocrisy? Jenin. Remember the headline years ago? "Massacre in Jenin." The truth? Israel had the option of bombing the entire town, wiping out the terrorists without risking a single Israeli life. Instead, in an effort to protect civilians in Jenin, they instead sent soldiers into the city to carry out targeted attacks. 54 Palestinians were killed, 52 dying with guns in their hands. 17 Israelis were also killed. I'd say that Israel want above and beyond the call of duty to protect civilians there; instead of praising them, the world condemned Israel for a "massacre." It's disgusting.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but when you refer to people evicted from that land, it's not who you think. No Arabs were required to leave in 1948. Who do you think Israeli Arabs are? The ones who stayed. The "Palestinians" are one of three groups of people:
People who have lived in Gaza/West Bank since before 1948. The reason they never got their state of Palestine as determined by the UN is because Egypt and Jordan stole their land.
Arabs who lived within the "Green Line" who voluntarily left when they didn't want to live under a Jewish government.
Foreigners like Yassir Arafat who were born in countries like Egypt and then claimed to be Palestinians.
No, in fact the only people to be evicted from the land were the Jewish residents of Gush Katif (the settlements in Gaza that Sharon's government evicted in 2005).
Besides, comparing the situation to Texas and the Mexicans is inaccurate; both Jews and Arabs have been living in the land for centuries.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe someone has already made this point, but perhaps we can extend the computer analogy inherent in the title of this article and deal with preemptive versus cooperative multitasking.
I believe the article is discussing only preemptive multitasking, in the sense that in the middle of doing one task, you will suddenly have your attention grabbed by some stimulus.
On the other hand, perhaps cooperative multitasking isn't so bad. In this sense, you might get to a logical break in the work and then switch to another task (eg, check your e-mail quickly).
Assuming that the only way you interact with the system is the GUI. There's plenty of server processes that I would like to survive even if the GUI crashes. And yes, even on a non-server machine: I will often SSH into my desktop from a laptop. If my wife is watching a movie on the desktop and the whole GUI crashes, I don't lose my work.
If you want to really clean up diskspace, try:
sudo rm -rf..., just kidding, don't really do that. I did have a point for this troll: if someone posts code and tells you to run it, don't do it if you don't understand what you're running
Precisely one of the reasons that Linux is more stable than Windows...
Why would remove features from the library make a program perform (significantly) better? Why not just avoid using those classes you consider bloated?
I had 2 GB of RAM you insensitive clod.
I wonder if those customers can demand a refund on Vista, same you can install Linux on a new system and say you never accepted the license.
You think that was hard... at my school, we had to use WINDOWS!
Nokia could get out of developing QT, but someone else would move into the niche and undercut the prices of their proprietary replacement. It is simply too hot of a business opportunity to be ignored right now. Maybe the companies dumping money into QT development would go down for a while without Nokia's support, or maybe they would go up because people see an opportunity to make money. Either way, Nokia trying to use it as leverage is not going to get them too far.
Actually, only the copyright owner (now Nokia, since they bought out Trolltech) could make a proprietary release of Qt due to the GPL.
As much as we all hate Microsoft, I think this is genuinely a good idea. Can't we put aside our biases and consider this proposal on its own merits?
Because we all know that 2 is a square...
And you must be new here.
Cause the mods have tried firefox 3? I've been annoyed by firefox 2 in the past, but since I started using firefox 3 (both at work on Windows and at home on Linux) I have no complaints.
You must be new here... every week is Microsoft Hate Week(TM).
So you don't work at the circus?
Anyone else reverse two of the words in that sentence?
No, I think he was saying that it's better than IE6. The original question (from his users) was why not to migrate from IE6 to IE7. And I think, feature-wise, IE7 *does* beat IE6.
Thank you for actually providing links. I don't know the story of Rachel Corrie. As far as Matan Vilnai, two points: 1) I doubt you speak Hebrew. The word "shoah" can be used in other contexts (as the BBC article points out). 2) I really don't care what a politician calls it.
As far as the Geneva conventions: they don't apply here at all, since Geneva conventions only apply to two nations that abide by it. I think I hear what you're saying: the Palestinians are incapable of respecting the conventions, and therefore Israel should treat them as if they did. I would agree, except for one thing: even when the Palestinians have the ability to follow the Geneva conventions (not firing from civilian areas, not torturing captured soldiers, etc) they do not.
I'm reading Slashdot => no. QED
And you're going to provide a link to those documents, right? Because I've never heard of that happening.
I don't seek to justify the disgusting actions of Hamas, merely state that I find Israel's response unacceptable, counter-productive and results in many infant deaths as wellWhat part of the response is unacceptable? You don't like Israel sending rockets back at the launch sites?
Yes, Hamas shoots rockets from "civilian areas".Good, we agree on the fact-in-point. Now let's extend this a little farther: Palestinian civilian deaths would drop dramatically if Hamas stopped this practice.
Also, it's rather tough to Godwin yourself on the subject when Israel's own Defence Minister claims he is orchestrating a Holocaust, big-H.I'd like a link for that also, as I simply don't buy it. And even if he did say that, it doesn't make it true; I have very little respect for the opinions of politicians.
Mind reading this quote and the section on Jenin and explaining how Israel "don't give a shit about civilian causalities" [sic]?
The Hamas terrorists are shooting the rockets from civilian areas.
2) All Israeli citizens are required to serve time in the military. Hamas seem rather low on funds for nice uniforms.Even if we follow that absurd thinking, how does that justify the murder of children?
3) Hamas blow up people sitting in cafés near military barracks. Israel bulldozes the houses around where the bomber lived.That you can morally equate those two at all is disgusting. I needn't even address your factual inaccuracies; were what you said true, you think that murdering civilians is the same as bulldozing houses? Not to Godwin's Law this thing, but I think the Nazis also had a similar value for human life.
I'm assuming you actually have a story to back that up. And based upon the context, I'm sure you mean that the Israeli purposely targeted the Muslim boys just for fun, and that the Israeli government didn't immediately apologize for the unfortunate loss of life.
Seriously, how you can make any comparison between a country targeting terrorists and accidentally killing the civilians those terrorists are hiding amongst, and people purposely targeting civilians is beyond me.
Want an example of this hypocrisy? Jenin. Remember the headline years ago? "Massacre in Jenin." The truth? Israel had the option of bombing the entire town, wiping out the terrorists without risking a single Israeli life. Instead, in an effort to protect civilians in Jenin, they instead sent soldiers into the city to carry out targeted attacks. 54 Palestinians were killed, 52 dying with guns in their hands. 17 Israelis were also killed. I'd say that Israel want above and beyond the call of duty to protect civilians there; instead of praising them, the world condemned Israel for a "massacre." It's disgusting.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but when you refer to people evicted from that land, it's not who you think. No Arabs were required to leave in 1948. Who do you think Israeli Arabs are? The ones who stayed. The "Palestinians" are one of three groups of people:
No, in fact the only people to be evicted from the land were the Jewish residents of Gush Katif (the settlements in Gaza that Sharon's government evicted in 2005).
Besides, comparing the situation to Texas and the Mexicans is inaccurate; both Jews and Arabs have been living in the land for centuries.