I stated that government regulation *is* good I support it. My comment is mainly, however, to state that there's no "special" kind of person that gets government jobs and is thus less human than private-sector job takers.
And so, things that people do in the private sector are things that people in the public/government sector do, as well. That includes corruption, cutting corners, being lazy, or whatever you want.
Yes, of course, "most" people don't tend to do those things because most people either feel bad for doing them or seem to get along just fine (or better) without doing them. That wasn't the point. The point is that Dell is not some weird corporation full of abnormally corrupt people (nor, incidentally, is the government).
One difference, though: Dell can fire people. Governments seem to have more of the tenure-sorts of things...
Yes; what we need are government regulators that Dell can pay off so that these stories never actually make it out* and give buyers the opportunity to react with their wallets.
Sarcasm aside: government regulation is good and helpful to a certain extent, but it doesn't solve all problems. Why? Because the government is made up of the same people that make up companies, and they can be bought, corrupted, and act unethically. And, unfortunately, we can't easily "boycott" the government, whereas we CAN refuse to buy Dell products, if we so desire.
Unfortunately, I'm only a doomsayer, I don't have many good ideas in this way. I would like to say that I don't know many people who actually think there should be a 100% free market, just like I don't know many people who think we should have a 100% regulated market (i.e., no freedom in the market at all). Arguing against an exaggerated position of people who suppor ta "Free market" may not help much. Or, I may just be ignorant of the folks who actually advocate a 100% no-regulation-whatsoever market...
* Because then a lawsuit against Dell would also involve the regulators and regulating governmental agency, which basically would mean that another group of people would be at risk and raise the incentive to hide the documents/defeat the lawsuit. Examples, perhaps? The recent coal mining stuff and BP. Those had government agencies attempting to regulate them and whatnot. Fancy that, the ones that were overseeing BP were corrupted. Shocking.
"Believing in Jesus" and "proselytizing" are big aspects. Especially the "Believing in Jesus" part. A group that says "Jesus is Satan's brother" and a group that says "Jesus is God" and a gourp that says "Jesus wasn't God"... those are all very different, and yet you could all say they "believe in Jesus."
Here's an example of a definition of a evangelical Christian. From wikipedia, of all places. In the summary above the wikipedia article.
Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian theological stream which began in Great Britain in the 1730s.[1] Its key commitments are:
The need for personal conversion (or being "born again")
Actively expressing and sharing the gospel
A high regard for biblical authority, especially biblical inerrancy
An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus.[2]
And one may argue, "but the usage has changed since then!" Perhaps so. So has the word "scientist." And "doctor."
Doesn't KDE load your desktop after logging in, then? It displays that incremental-icon-highlighting window as each portion of the DE is loaded.
It has been a little while since I used openSuSE but I used 11.0 and have used KDE 4.3, as well as a variety of other KDE-based distros...
But I haven't used them super recently, so maybe they do indeed have the drop on Ubuntu. I initially switched to Ubuntu (and gnome) partially for speed reasons though, so that'd be ironic.:)
I run Ubuntu and Windows 7. Windows 7 is on my desktop, Ubuntu 10.10 on two laptops (one Dell, one ThinkPad). Both OS's have begun to pause before loading the desktop, after login. Windows 7 on my desktop is still a little faster, but I'd chalk that at least partially to being on better hardware. Ubuntu on my work laptop takes about 10-15 seconds before it's able to open the first program I request (e.g., Chrome) from after it displays the complete desktop. It also displays the background (and icons) a couple seconds before it displays the menu/'system tray' bar at the top. It's very clearly loading something afterwards; probably various user-specific programs that start on-login.
To say that Ubuntu somehow magically knows who is going to login and loads their profile's programs before they login? That's not true. Perhaps you just don't install much on the Linux distro, in which case it would indeed load faster; there's less to load.
In my experience, if you don't install anything, neither OS post-login-startup performance suffers. I have another Windows 7 installation that boots very quickly and loads the full desktop very quickly, and loads Chrome almost instantly after displaying the full desktop environment.
Linux has no magic, nor does Windows, and neither one can magically load user-profiles before the user logs in.
Even the original article refers to it as an "evangelical cult."
Hey, I heard about this scientist who proves things using a "scientific method" but his method is logically faulty. But since he claims to be a scientist, and claims his method is the "scientific method," I guess it's true; therefore, I guess other scientists are the same way. After all, one scientist can't use the "not a true Scotsman" argument. If I claim to be a scientist, I am one!
The funny thing is, I don't see who is claiming to be an "evangelical Christian." I see "evangelical cult" and "Christian homes," but "evangelical Christian" is NOT used in the original; that was apparently interpreted by the Guardian.
... so isn't this basically just a way to gather all the appropriate dependencies and put them all into one spot?
Hm. I guess this is a way to do it without installing. Reading comprehension fail...
Still, I can see how it could be useful in some situations, just like having certain programs that don't require installation on Windows can be helpful.
Ubuntu package management requires online access, unless you keep an updated DVD of the latest normal dependencies.
That means, if you have a Linux distro sitting on a non-internet-ized computer, it can be difficult to run a random program because of the dependencies and libraries you need.
Granted, that's not going to happen in too many random user's setups, but it could happen.
Not necessarily... the point of the first paragraph in an article seems to be to get you to read the rest of the article. The point of the slashdot summary seems to be so you don't have to read the article.
You're joking (I think;) )... but actually, I'd be interested to know what the WH uses for reports like this. And those giant 2k page bills they draft. MS Word?:P
Ah, but you see, Bush was president while most of that happened. Therefore it is his fault. [please disregard "Congress" majorities when complaining about politicial parties, kthxbye]
Oh, I'd agree it's worth looking at for some companies. No arguments there. It sounded like you were implying they "never" went down or something odd like that... which, apparently, you weren't.:)
Virus, power outage, or hardware failure? Not sure. Unexpected outages? Well, at the very least, 2009. I'm sure there have been at least local outages in 2010, too.
Worthless? Pointing out that what the previous post said happened, as though it happened all the time, does not happen all the time? I guess a percentage would be nice. I haven't found one yet.
So we're stuck apparently. Neither of us has the numbers you want, right? I'm not sure why the burden of proof is on me at this point.
Unfortunately, I have looked/read online and can only find usage and "success" rates, but not rates of success getting a lower time-served sentence (asylum vs. prison).
Also: people still would not have believed the FAA/DoA if they said "Yeah, it was a jet." People aren't believing a non-government source, saying it's not from the government; people also aren't believing the government denying it, because it's from the government. Hm.
Presume the DoD *did* do it. Ok, then they should be able to get an answer out pretty quickly. You know, a cover story or whatever.
Assume they *didn't* do it. They obviously aren't paying much attention. Nobody on watch called the DoD and said "Hey, just want to let you know, a jet just left a contrail. Thought I'd notify you." So the DoD know they didn't do it, assume it is not a missile, and thus don't care. Why assign someone to look into it? They DID give a public answer, didn't they? Or at least, parts of the armed forces did: they denied it. That's an answer, isn't it? It's not necessarily up to them to investigate, quickly, every single jet contrail that someone says "ahhhh it's a missile launch!"
So if you presume the DoD didn't do it, then 36 hours isn't bad. Apparently, the media doesn't really care. Afterall, a "it was a jet flying a normal pathway" story isn't going to sell much. On the other hand, a "secret missile test [in broad daylight]" story is a good seller.
So maybe: the armed forces/DoD/Pentagon didn't do it. The news media don't care because they realize they didn't do it, and a story about a jet taking off isn't very interesting. So it only took 36 hours for a random guy to put all the pieces together and give a good answer.
Slashdot Mirror
The author is just mad he didn't find a misplaced tablet in a bar.
But you're about to go on an airplane. That's pretty suspicious. ;)
Am I the only one that finds it slightly humorous that people were pirating a product called Avast! ... ? :)
I stated that government regulation *is* good I support it. My comment is mainly, however, to state that there's no "special" kind of person that gets government jobs and is thus less human than private-sector job takers.
And so, things that people do in the private sector are things that people in the public/government sector do, as well. That includes corruption, cutting corners, being lazy, or whatever you want.
Yes, of course, "most" people don't tend to do those things because most people either feel bad for doing them or seem to get along just fine (or better) without doing them. That wasn't the point. The point is that Dell is not some weird corporation full of abnormally corrupt people (nor, incidentally, is the government).
One difference, though: Dell can fire people. Governments seem to have more of the tenure-sorts of things...
Yes; what we need are government regulators that Dell can pay off so that these stories never actually make it out* and give buyers the opportunity to react with their wallets.
Sarcasm aside: government regulation is good and helpful to a certain extent, but it doesn't solve all problems. Why? Because the government is made up of the same people that make up companies, and they can be bought, corrupted, and act unethically. And, unfortunately, we can't easily "boycott" the government, whereas we CAN refuse to buy Dell products, if we so desire.
Unfortunately, I'm only a doomsayer, I don't have many good ideas in this way. I would like to say that I don't know many people who actually think there should be a 100% free market, just like I don't know many people who think we should have a 100% regulated market (i.e., no freedom in the market at all). Arguing against an exaggerated position of people who suppor ta "Free market" may not help much. Or, I may just be ignorant of the folks who actually advocate a 100% no-regulation-whatsoever market...
* Because then a lawsuit against Dell would also involve the regulators and regulating governmental agency, which basically would mean that another group of people would be at risk and raise the incentive to hide the documents/defeat the lawsuit. Examples, perhaps? The recent coal mining stuff and BP. Those had government agencies attempting to regulate them and whatnot. Fancy that, the ones that were overseeing BP were corrupted. Shocking.
"Believing in Jesus" and "proselytizing" are big aspects. Especially the "Believing in Jesus" part. A group that says "Jesus is Satan's brother" and a group that says "Jesus is God" and a gourp that says "Jesus wasn't God" ... those are all very different, and yet you could all say they "believe in Jesus."
Here's an example of a definition of a evangelical Christian. From wikipedia, of all places. In the summary above the wikipedia article.
Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian theological stream which began in Great Britain in the 1730s.[1] Its key commitments are:
The need for personal conversion (or being "born again")
Actively expressing and sharing the gospel
A high regard for biblical authority, especially biblical inerrancy
An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus.[2]
And one may argue, "but the usage has changed since then!" Perhaps so. So has the word "scientist." And "doctor."
Or even "jogging" or "running." It's thing people do on their legs.
Doesn't KDE load your desktop after logging in, then? It displays that incremental-icon-highlighting window as each portion of the DE is loaded.
It has been a little while since I used openSuSE but I used 11.0 and have used KDE 4.3, as well as a variety of other KDE-based distros...
But I haven't used them super recently, so maybe they do indeed have the drop on Ubuntu. I initially switched to Ubuntu (and gnome) partially for speed reasons though, so that'd be ironic. :)
That is not necessarily true.
I run Ubuntu and Windows 7. Windows 7 is on my desktop, Ubuntu 10.10 on two laptops (one Dell, one ThinkPad). Both OS's have begun to pause before loading the desktop, after login. Windows 7 on my desktop is still a little faster, but I'd chalk that at least partially to being on better hardware. Ubuntu on my work laptop takes about 10-15 seconds before it's able to open the first program I request (e.g., Chrome) from after it displays the complete desktop. It also displays the background (and icons) a couple seconds before it displays the menu/'system tray' bar at the top. It's very clearly loading something afterwards; probably various user-specific programs that start on-login.
To say that Ubuntu somehow magically knows who is going to login and loads their profile's programs before they login? That's not true. Perhaps you just don't install much on the Linux distro, in which case it would indeed load faster; there's less to load.
In my experience, if you don't install anything, neither OS post-login-startup performance suffers. I have another Windows 7 installation that boots very quickly and loads the full desktop very quickly, and loads Chrome almost instantly after displaying the full desktop environment.
Linux has no magic, nor does Windows, and neither one can magically load user-profiles before the user logs in.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, or a belief that there is no god?
"someone who denies the existence of god" according to Google. Denying something is different from simply "not believing" in something.
Even the original article refers to it as an "evangelical cult."
Hey, I heard about this scientist who proves things using a "scientific method" but his method is logically faulty. But since he claims to be a scientist, and claims his method is the "scientific method," I guess it's true; therefore, I guess other scientists are the same way. After all, one scientist can't use the "not a true Scotsman" argument. If I claim to be a scientist, I am one!
The funny thing is, I don't see who is claiming to be an "evangelical Christian." I see "evangelical cult" and "Christian homes," but "evangelical Christian" is NOT used in the original; that was apparently interpreted by the Guardian.
How many pixels would be required to hold one LoC?
... so isn't this basically just a way to gather all the appropriate dependencies and put them all into one spot?
Hm. I guess this is a way to do it without installing. Reading comprehension fail...
Still, I can see how it could be useful in some situations, just like having certain programs that don't require installation on Windows can be helpful.
Ubuntu package management requires online access, unless you keep an updated DVD of the latest normal dependencies.
That means, if you have a Linux distro sitting on a non-internet-ized computer, it can be difficult to run a random program because of the dependencies and libraries you need.
Granted, that's not going to happen in too many random user's setups, but it could happen.
Not necessarily... the point of the first paragraph in an article seems to be to get you to read the rest of the article. The point of the slashdot summary seems to be so you don't have to read the article.
You're joking (I think ;) ) ... but actually, I'd be interested to know what the WH uses for reports like this. And those giant 2k page bills they draft. MS Word? :P
Ah, but you see, Bush was president while most of that happened. Therefore it is his fault. [please disregard "Congress" majorities when complaining about politicial parties, kthxbye]
;)
Oh, I'd agree it's worth looking at for some companies. No arguments there. It sounded like you were implying they "never" went down or something odd like that... which, apparently, you weren't. :)
Virus, power outage, or hardware failure? Not sure. Unexpected outages? Well, at the very least, 2009. I'm sure there have been at least local outages in 2010, too.
them.
Worthless? Pointing out that what the previous post said happened, as though it happened all the time, does not happen all the time? I guess a percentage would be nice. I haven't found one yet.
So we're stuck apparently. Neither of us has the numbers you want, right? I'm not sure why the burden of proof is on me at this point.
Unfortunately, I have looked/read online and can only find usage and "success" rates, but not rates of success getting a lower time-served sentence (asylum vs. prison).
Because, clearly, rockets don't have to accelerate.
I don't know how fast rockets accelerate, of course. Someone else would have to chime in with that info.
Also: people still would not have believed the FAA/DoA if they said "Yeah, it was a jet." People aren't believing a non-government source, saying it's not from the government; people also aren't believing the government denying it, because it's from the government. Hm.
It's not bizarre. It depends what you presume.
Presume the DoD *did* do it. Ok, then they should be able to get an answer out pretty quickly. You know, a cover story or whatever.
Assume they *didn't* do it. They obviously aren't paying much attention. Nobody on watch called the DoD and said "Hey, just want to let you know, a jet just left a contrail. Thought I'd notify you." So the DoD know they didn't do it, assume it is not a missile, and thus don't care. Why assign someone to look into it? They DID give a public answer, didn't they? Or at least, parts of the armed forces did: they denied it. That's an answer, isn't it? It's not necessarily up to them to investigate, quickly, every single jet contrail that someone says "ahhhh it's a missile launch!"
So if you presume the DoD didn't do it, then 36 hours isn't bad. Apparently, the media doesn't really care. Afterall, a "it was a jet flying a normal pathway" story isn't going to sell much. On the other hand, a "secret missile test [in broad daylight]" story is a good seller.
So maybe: the armed forces/DoD/Pentagon didn't do it. The news media don't care because they realize they didn't do it, and a story about a jet taking off isn't very interesting. So it only took 36 hours for a random guy to put all the pieces together and give a good answer.
I agree. Wait... was that a joke?