None of what you say is remotely relevant to me. I suspect it's also completely irrelevant to 99.9% of other computer users.
No it isn't.
However, minorities are important. That's why you have alternatives in Linux. If Gnome 3 doesn't work for you, don't use it.
I dumped a few years ago because it dumped all of the things that makes it useful to someone who needs to drive their productivity to a UI that is malleable. Not Windows, not MAC, a native, high performance Linux UI with all of the configurability a long time Linux user is used to.
I wondered if was time to re-visit Gnome 3 and I can see from your post that it isn't. Thank you for saving me the effort.
It is just wrong on so many levels to bury valuable nuclear fuel when we can get energy from it.
If it is buried then it is also secure and difficult, but not impossible, to extract and use again.
I speak of waste annihilating molten salt reactors, liquid fluoride thorium reactors, and other liquid fuel technologies.
Are these on the syfy channel or do you have a link to this technology, the expected service life of a reactor and the energetic costs of demolision?
The reactor technology I speak of, has been developed, tested and proven to work, i.e. it's real. It's burnup rate makes it much more efficient as a waste anhilation reactor. Can you cite the burnup rate of what you propose?
Anything that uses liquid sodium as a coolant seems like a very bad idea to me.
Anything that creates a waste stream of Thallium-233 makes explosive radioactive sodium look like fairy floss. It's very nasty stuff.
I believe that they will be built just not in the USA, at least not at first. The US DoE is exceedingly risk adverse and therefore I suspect that they will simply not allow a truly new reactor design to the built in its jurisdiction. We will see Canada, China, UAE, or some other nation do something new first. After a few years the DoE will be dragged kicking and screaming to allow something new in the USA. It doesn't help that the existing nuclear power industry lives on the razor blade model, they will practically give away a nuclear power plant just so that they can sell solid fuel assemblies to the new owners of the power plant at, no doubt, a very high profit margin.
Won't happen. The only reactors approved under that format come from Europe. Anything else threatens established oil and coal interests who have already shut that down. So I can't see that happening as the attempt has already been made and crushed.
It does have to play nice to the extent that the current rules require all fission fuel to be bought from the DoE. There's probably ways around that too.
Well defence has much better safety protocols than private industry and if it needs to by-pass the rules that were established out of lessons learned inside the nuclear industry to prevent accidents then you are artificially creating the scenario for another nuclear accident.
So you are essentially saying that for a small group of power users in a narrow field linux is where it's at
The topic was about software development on those platforms by software developers, and for me, yes I find it to be a good platform for doing software development.
And that should be a reason for everyone to use Linux?
No, just that some people appreciate the freedom of adapting the environment to themselves instead of the other way around. It's also an observation that since these platforms are being built on Linux and BSD machines understanding them at a shell level gives you ultimate control over them and creating the environment you need, the gui just extends that. So no way, it's not for everyone but it is for me.
However, everyone already uses an abstracted Linux or BSD anyway.
And it seems like about 8 years ago the Linux desktop got really good and usable and then... it started to walk backwards.
That's about when I started experimenting with saving UI customizations to make it portable enough to survive re-installations. Otherwise, I completely agree, I can't say it's inspiring right now but since it does what *I* want, its ok by me.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Yes, it's negative when you figure in he billions of tons of hot air wasted by the NIMBYs who have already caused global warming
No doubt said by the same group of people who ignored Carl Sagan's original warnings about atmospheric carbon. You'd fart in a lift and point at someone else.
by stopping nukes,
You guys are more moronic than possible if you believe a bunch of hicks in pick up trucks or hippies in combi vans are going to stop the placement of a 100 Billion dollar nuclear power facility.
and assume that each one will will be blown up and spread radioactive waste that will be cleaned up in the most labor intensive method possible.
What a lot of FUD, it assumes they are intact using industry standard measurements for the required industrial activities, exactly the same method the Nuclear Industry uses to create it's own estimates.
Go ahead and actually read those studies.
Yes, educate yourself before opening your mouth instead of shilling.
An emotionally intelligent person's actions, however, are completely about trying to manipulate the people around them so they get their supply of whatever it is that they want.
As I said, their actions may not be altruistic. Achieving goals is different from wanting to make people suffer. The important distinction is empathy and the effect of having it usually because of suffering adversity themselves.
If you've ever experienced the destructiveness of a sociopath you would understand the difference.
The radioactive waste issue is also a solved problem, the only reason it is viewed as a problem today is because we have backward laws on how to deal with radioactive material
No it isn't. There are extremely complex geological problems that have to be solved so that the radioactive isotopes don't end up in groundwater.
and because we have not yet built a truly modern reactor. We've been building what is basically the same backward reactors for 60 years.
The reactor you speak of, IFR, was funded, built and is now budgeted for complete destruction in the 2005 Energy act which also contains budget for building the reactors that you speak of that are the same as IFR (Sec 600 onwards) and no organizations are accessing that funding. So it is extremely unlikely that these reactors will ever be built commercially.
"Fer God's sake, fusion energy is just around the corner...:)"
And nuclear fission is here now.
A good measure of the quality of an energy source is the energy return on energy investment (EROEI).
I see a future that is driven by nuclear fission, nothing else can compare.
Work studying the EROEI of nuclear power has already been done with input from a host of universities. They included the technologies you speak of and found that nuclear power has a *negative* EROEI.
You may argue that it's not real, that he doesn't have the genuine emotions or empathy - but if the practical outcome is exactly the same, what difference does it make?
The difference is the sociopath is, even unconsciously, trying to manipulate the people around them so they get their supply of others suffering. An emotionally intelligent person has no need for such a supply, their actions may not be altruistic however they aren't designed to cause suffering.
Such a pro-consumer law would be viewed as an "impediment' to profit under the TPP. The interested party (the company) will be eligible for an Investor State Dispute Settlement for non conformance to the TPP. The interested party nominates a number for compensation and then the taxpayer (also the consumer) has to maintain compensation to the company (i.e. pay them) until the "impediment" (i.e. the pro consumer law) is "nullified" (i.e removed).
Essentially the TPP makes all pro-consumer laws and protections un-affordable to the state and the taxpayer. People are free to protest why laws can't be put in place to provide those protections and politicians will respond by saying they are unaffordable. What they won't say is that they are un-affordable because they are the ones who agreed to signing away their own nations sovereignty to a third party out of their control.
Though I have done X forwarding to Windows before and it did work well.
Integrating the win UI with X11 works pretty well.
It's easier for me to SSH into the Lunix server in my cabinet for those than it is for me to run through the Cygwin installer again. If I remember next time I'm updating Cygwin or need to install some more critical utility, they'll get installed then.
Which you probably do through the default cygwin terminals. Cygwin/X gives you better access to them via an X menu, a better term window which works well with windows and the workspaces.
Hopefully someone finds your post helpful, as it really does contain some good info.
I used to use Cygwin the same way you are now and thought it might be useful to you after reading your sig.
Try installing Cygwin/X with workspace switcher on Windows. Put hack in.fonts and you have a good X11 and Shell access, cut paste paradigm works good too. You are limited to 4 workspaces but it is better than nothing. That way you can ssh something from a linux box onto the UI of the win box, actually you can bring the entire linux UI desktop onto the win desktop and use both. put your ssh agent in the.bashrc before X11 starts and you will be able to ssh into your machines.
For the record, I have used Linux since 1993. I also used Minix back then on my home-grown BBS (you wouldn't know, you are too young).
I know what you mean, going beyond tuning a solaris kernel with MAXUSERS or ATT unix, Interactive, coding C with vi on a hp700/44 serial terminal. Pretty much everything is a step up from that.
I had a short brush with Macs when I went to business school, but didn't own an OSX machine until I got a Macbook Pro a couple of years back. My personal web stuff is all on Linux on AWS. I am not an Apple fan boi by any stretch of the imagination.
I beleive you. I always though that 68000 mac hardware was better than PCs. Apple made less hardware back then, but they used the same stuff that was on the servers so it was rock solid. I loved it.
So, what makes OSX infinitely more usable than Linux? Two things, usability and apps. There are no usable apps for regular stuff for Linux. Seriously. Show me an alternative to Photoshop, for example.
I can't show you an alternative to Photoshop, except GIMP, but I haven't used it for a production so I can't speak to usability, I'm told it's very powerful. What I can speak to is Audio production in Linux is hands down where the innovation is occurring. Sure, Mac maybe more usable, but that's a poweruser issue, not an innovation issue. My observations about many Apple applications is that they let you get to a level of good productivity real fast with a fantastic user experience at the expense of sheilding you from the power of the machine and making innovation less accessible. Sure that lets you be creative, but nothing out of the ordinary.
The usability paradigm in Linux attracts a different type of user. When I commit to an application I want to own the space and not be limited by the type of commercial imperatives that can alter my investment in learning, in that regard open source software is superior because sometimes the users also contribute to the code base. Obviously this does not exclude them from being a MAC user, that is the power of open source though.
I think people are too scared to explore because of what the constantly changing Windows environment did to them. Apples brilliance was taking people out of that paradigm, who can fault that move. However Apple also missed out on the significant advances in the Power PC CPU architecture, as IBM received a massive cash inflow of development from Microsoft *and* Sony, so they weren't that smart moving to intel. I'm certain Intel would have been aware of their strategic position though, when making that deal.
I'm curious about what languages you are developing in though, do you mind sharing?
The sad reality is not that OSX folks have a superiority complex, they quite possibly do, the sad thing is that when you point out that OSX beats Linux on everything, Linux users are sooo insecure they have to lash out. Get over your self, get rid of Linux (on your desktop) and be happier.
Wow, I would have said it was the other way around, I am just so damn comfortable in Linux that the UI is almost irrelevant. I have all the platforms in the house, including a powerbook for my wife. I thought that since Apple didn't have to pay for the use of an excellent O.S platform they could focus their effort on the UI - they did great job too, however I'm just not fond of how that UI context works, it's same reason I dumped Unity. Mac is more usable, but I feel limited, like the power of the machine is abstracted away from me. You're probably right but does my preference count? I don't care what others use, however is it ok for me to use Linux because I actually like the way it works and I'm happy with it? I am stupid for not using a MAC to code?
Please don't take offence, I'm not criticizing devs who use Macs either, I'm actually interested what I can learn about if there are things better than what I do. I'm not convinced that it is a
Frankly I think male and female street dancers, hip-hop style would have been totally appropriate for gaming, more inclusive, more cool and the right type of energy for such an event, allowing everyone to socialize later - even the dancers. Probably the MS events team were on auto pilot and just not very imaginative. I don't think they asked themselves "what type of dancers would be appropriate for such an event".
I'm straight, but no, I wouldn't care. I don't feel threatened by buff guys dancing or gyrating or whatever.
I would, because it would not be an appropriate form of dance for such an event, it would not be cool. Neither would ballet dancing, which would include male and female dancers. This is not a sexual thing, which I think a lot of people are too obsessed with here, it's about picking the right form of performance art.
In fact, I tend to think it's actually discriminatory not to hire male dancers- hasn't the hue and cry for the last decade been all about "equality" and "equal opportunity"? Why should only women get a chance to make money by being employed as eye-candy at the trade show booths?
Exactly. There are a lot of really cool male performance dancers that probably could have actually brought in more female *gamers* and programmers not because it was a sexual thing, but because it would have looked fucking cool. Why is this just a discrimination against women thing here, I didn't see male dancers being employed. I didn't see the female dancers complaining that they were employed for *doing their peformance art* but I'm certain they will when they aren't.
Why is this just about more opportunities for females in IT (which I agree with)? Why isn't this also about more opportunities for male performance artists in a female dominated profession of dancing? Inclusion works both ways.
There is a high degree of non pragmatic thinking going on here getting too focused on how the SJW are offended at bros looking at hot chicks that completely ignores that MS actually did screw up, not because they choose to go with scantily clad dancers but because they chose an inappropriate performance art for the event.
Male performance artists were excluded as much as female programmers were excluded, so let's try to maintain some perspective about the difference between getting equal, which helps everyone and, getting even, which helps no-one.
The TPP is an expression of American Empire for American Corporate citizens. Human citizens do not factor much in the parts of the TPP I have read (I only managed roughly 1000 pages) where law is referred to as "nullification", "obstruction" and "impediment". I can't see it being good for any nation that signs, even the US. While I was reading it, I found it was overwhelming in its reach.
What I think we are seeing can be best described as "extra-national corporate hedgemony" where nationality isn't as important as having dominance over a nations court system, which is the core of the treaty in the ISDS provisions. The taxpayer is thus co-erced into compensating the company to maintain profit margins for having to obey the law, of which the taxpayer is now *obliged* to do whilst providing a plan as to when the law will be wound back and removed.
There is no concern with common law, which is isolated, only *anything* to do with trade (including labour) where it is framed in such a way that corporate citizens can mold it, with plenty of time to do so. That's in the anti-corruption provisions - which is kind of ironic considering it is making something legal that was illegal.
Empire is irrelevant under the TPP, as is Nationality, more like a Corpocracy driven by a hidden autocracy to whom the wealth is funneled.
This is possibly the most insightful comment ever posted to slashdot, if people actually understood why it is so.
America's hidden aristocracy has learned from the British aristocracy that it is better to stay behind the scenes wielding influence and concealing power than to be a known target that can be criticized and accused.
The TPP marks the dying days of democratic process. I've spent some weeks trying to get my head around it's 6000 pages. I found the anti-corruption provisions of the TPP were completely one-sided and directed at the public services of signee nations with no obligations for signee nation to make provisions for corporations offering such corruption.
The TPP has been persistently pushed as an inevitable outcome. I only managed to get through 1000 pages which was enough to realize it's ratification announces the formal end of the democratic process' relevance to westernized nations.
The power elite in US has found the way to embed it's control over the world through a very slow progressive dumbing down of the populous and, careful application of fear combined with nationalism.
Whatever remains of peoples rights will now be converted, wholesale, into capital. This is the consequence of a shallow insular society with no concerns for protecting the democracy and freedom that protect them. Very sad.
The pressure was very high, beyond the limit at which the reactor was designed to operate or sustain for long.
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers tested this type of reactor (without fuel in it) and found that it leaks at 70psi. This was the first critical design basis issue. The second was the gate pair seals for the spent fuel pools would leak if they were not powered (IIUC they're inflated with compressed air). What this meant was that GE had to issue instructions to operators. S class facilities have to be constantly powered, this means the reactor and the spent fuel cooling pools. Means *had* to be provided for the reactor to always have power. They didn't and this is why this is criminal negligence at a board room level.
Exposure of these basis design issues meant that as the fuel became more critical in the reactor and the cooling pools they would produce the hydrogen that lead to the explosion. We knowthe spent fuel cool pools were leaking because there was about 450 tons of water above the fuel rods would keep them cool for about 7 days without additional cooling.
Not quite high enough to force open the final emergency rupture points that were designed to fail first to avoid an even more catastrophic explosion.
I have a theory about that. I think that the failing cooling pool is what stopped the reactor from rupturing. The water either broke the seal all at once or over came some threshold to arrive at the head of the reactor where most of it was converted to steam and hydrogen when exploding. It wouldn't have been the first time something some comedy of circumstance prevented a nuclear accident from being worse than it could have been.
What you have to remember is that the containment building was already damaged at this point.
I don't think these nutty nukkers place any value on the communities that Nuclear power destroys.
There is an NHK documentary called 88 Hours that explains all this pretty well, see if you can track it down.
Thank you, I'll look it up. Great scoop btw - a pity I was too busy to get into this one.
impeachment, you completely propagandized dolt. Let me mansplain it to you:
You are also missing the point, and being a douchebag at the same time. The bigger picture was the opportunity for international nuclear disarmament treaty was lost which highlights the dysfunctional nature of two party politics. No steps forward, one step back.
1. 2.
It's was a good explanation. I wasn't aware of that, however it changes *nothing* about what I have said. The opportunity in history to make the world better was lost, as you mansplain, by Clinton's own folly which mansplains why his language in interacting with the press used specific legal terms. I would like to understand that part of history better however it is still irrelevant in terms of the point I have made.
The Magna Carta
Due process of law has been bypassed in the US by the Bush administration that appointed him the wartime powers to pass various terrorism acts. It was not restored by Obama so this apolitical issue is unlikely to ever be rectified.
You know, if ole Bill had managed to control his pecker
Seriously, so fucking what. Bill got his dick sucked by a young saucy intern - welcome to the world of having testosterone. If I was Bill I'd have looked the camera in the eye and said "Fuck yeah I had sex with her, I'm only human - I'll apologize to my wife but the rest of you can get in line and suck whatever is left. Next question."
If you wanted a reason to impeach Clinton it should have been for not taking a case of the finest Kentucky Bourbon whiskey he could find, presented it to Boris Yeltzin and said "Sign this Nuclear Disarmament treaty motherfucker and you can have this to get you started"
Slashdot Mirror
None of what you say is remotely relevant to me. I suspect it's also completely irrelevant to 99.9% of other computer users.
No it isn't.
However, minorities are important. That's why you have alternatives in Linux. If Gnome 3 doesn't work for you, don't use it.
I dumped a few years ago because it dumped all of the things that makes it useful to someone who needs to drive their productivity to a UI that is malleable. Not Windows, not MAC, a native, high performance Linux UI with all of the configurability a long time Linux user is used to.
I wondered if was time to re-visit Gnome 3 and I can see from your post that it isn't. Thank you for saving me the effort.
It is just wrong on so many levels to bury valuable nuclear fuel when we can get energy from it.
If it is buried then it is also secure and difficult, but not impossible, to extract and use again.
I speak of waste annihilating molten salt reactors, liquid fluoride thorium reactors, and other liquid fuel technologies.
Are these on the syfy channel or do you have a link to this technology, the expected service life of a reactor and the energetic costs of demolision?
The reactor technology I speak of, has been developed, tested and proven to work, i.e. it's real. It's burnup rate makes it much more efficient as a waste anhilation reactor. Can you cite the burnup rate of what you propose?
Anything that uses liquid sodium as a coolant seems like a very bad idea to me.
Anything that creates a waste stream of Thallium-233 makes explosive radioactive sodium look like fairy floss. It's very nasty stuff.
I believe that they will be built just not in the USA, at least not at first. The US DoE is exceedingly risk adverse and therefore I suspect that they will simply not allow a truly new reactor design to the built in its jurisdiction. We will see Canada, China, UAE, or some other nation do something new first. After a few years the DoE will be dragged kicking and screaming to allow something new in the USA. It doesn't help that the existing nuclear power industry lives on the razor blade model, they will practically give away a nuclear power plant just so that they can sell solid fuel assemblies to the new owners of the power plant at, no doubt, a very high profit margin.
Won't happen. The only reactors approved under that format come from Europe. Anything else threatens established oil and coal interests who have already shut that down. So I can't see that happening as the attempt has already been made and crushed.
It does have to play nice to the extent that the current rules require all fission fuel to be bought from the DoE. There's probably ways around that too.
Well defence has much better safety protocols than private industry and if it needs to by-pass the rules that were established out of lessons learned inside the nuclear industry to prevent accidents then you are artificially creating the scenario for another nuclear accident.
Only if you think destroying your own consumer rights is a good idea
So you are essentially saying that for a small group of power users in a narrow field linux is where it's at
The topic was about software development on those platforms by software developers, and for me, yes I find it to be a good platform for doing software development.
And that should be a reason for everyone to use Linux?
No, just that some people appreciate the freedom of adapting the environment to themselves instead of the other way around. It's also an observation that since these platforms are being built on Linux and BSD machines understanding them at a shell level gives you ultimate control over them and creating the environment you need, the gui just extends that. So no way, it's not for everyone but it is for me.
However, everyone already uses an abstracted Linux or BSD anyway.
And it seems like about 8 years ago the Linux desktop got really good and usable and then... it started to walk backwards.
That's about when I started experimenting with saving UI customizations to make it portable enough to survive re-installations. Otherwise, I completely agree, I can't say it's inspiring right now but since it does what *I* want, its ok by me.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Yes, well, funny you should say that...
Yes, it's negative when you figure in he billions of tons of hot air wasted by the NIMBYs who have already caused global warming
No doubt said by the same group of people who ignored Carl Sagan's original warnings about atmospheric carbon. You'd fart in a lift and point at someone else.
by stopping nukes,
You guys are more moronic than possible if you believe a bunch of hicks in pick up trucks or hippies in combi vans are going to stop the placement of a 100 Billion dollar nuclear power facility.
and assume that each one will will be blown up and spread radioactive waste that will be cleaned up in the most labor intensive method possible.
What a lot of FUD, it assumes they are intact using industry standard measurements for the required industrial activities, exactly the same method the Nuclear Industry uses to create it's own estimates.
Go ahead and actually read those studies.
Yes, educate yourself before opening your mouth instead of shilling.
An emotionally intelligent person's actions, however, are completely about trying to manipulate the people around them so they get their supply of whatever it is that they want.
As I said, their actions may not be altruistic. Achieving goals is different from wanting to make people suffer. The important distinction is empathy and the effect of having it usually because of suffering adversity themselves.
If you've ever experienced the destructiveness of a sociopath you would understand the difference.
The radioactive waste issue is also a solved problem, the only reason it is viewed as a problem today is because we have backward laws on how to deal with radioactive material
No it isn't. There are extremely complex geological problems that have to be solved so that the radioactive isotopes don't end up in groundwater.
and because we have not yet built a truly modern reactor. We've been building what is basically the same backward reactors for 60 years.
The reactor you speak of, IFR, was funded, built and is now budgeted for complete destruction in the 2005 Energy act which also contains budget for building the reactors that you speak of that are the same as IFR (Sec 600 onwards) and no organizations are accessing that funding. So it is extremely unlikely that these reactors will ever be built commercially.
"Fer God's sake, fusion energy is just around the corner... :)"
And nuclear fission is here now.
A good measure of the quality of an energy source is the energy return on energy investment (EROEI).
I see a future that is driven by nuclear fission, nothing else can compare.
Work studying the EROEI of nuclear power has already been done with input from a host of universities. They included the technologies you speak of and found that nuclear power has a *negative* EROEI.
You may argue that it's not real, that he doesn't have the genuine emotions or empathy - but if the practical outcome is exactly the same, what difference does it make?
The difference is the sociopath is, even unconsciously, trying to manipulate the people around them so they get their supply of others suffering. An emotionally intelligent person has no need for such a supply, their actions may not be altruistic however they aren't designed to cause suffering.
Such a pro-consumer law would be viewed as an "impediment' to profit under the TPP. The interested party (the company) will be eligible for an Investor State Dispute Settlement for non conformance to the TPP. The interested party nominates a number for compensation and then the taxpayer (also the consumer) has to maintain compensation to the company (i.e. pay them) until the "impediment" (i.e. the pro consumer law) is "nullified" (i.e removed).
Essentially the TPP makes all pro-consumer laws and protections un-affordable to the state and the taxpayer. People are free to protest why laws can't be put in place to provide those protections and politicians will respond by saying they are unaffordable. What they won't say is that they are un-affordable because they are the ones who agreed to signing away their own nations sovereignty to a third party out of their control.
I don't put GUIs on my servers... ew.
That's not what I was saying.
Though I have done X forwarding to Windows before and it did work well.
Integrating the win UI with X11 works pretty well.
It's easier for me to SSH into the Lunix server in my cabinet for those than it is for me to run through the Cygwin installer again. If I remember next time I'm updating Cygwin or need to install some more critical utility, they'll get installed then.
Which you probably do through the default cygwin terminals. Cygwin/X gives you better access to them via an X menu, a better term window which works well with windows and the workspaces.
Hopefully someone finds your post helpful, as it really does contain some good info.
I used to use Cygwin the same way you are now and thought it might be useful to you after reading your sig.
Try installing Cygwin/X with workspace switcher on Windows. Put hack in .fonts and you have a good X11 and Shell access, cut paste paradigm works good too. You are limited to 4 workspaces but it is better than nothing. That way you can ssh something from a linux box onto the UI of the win box, actually you can bring the entire linux UI desktop onto the win desktop and use both. put your ssh agent in the .bashrc before X11 starts and you will be able to ssh into your machines.
For the record, I have used Linux since 1993. I also used Minix back then on my home-grown BBS (you wouldn't know, you are too young).
I know what you mean, going beyond tuning a solaris kernel with MAXUSERS or ATT unix, Interactive, coding C with vi on a hp700/44 serial terminal. Pretty much everything is a step up from that.
I had a short brush with Macs when I went to business school, but didn't own an OSX machine until I got a Macbook Pro a couple of years back. My personal web stuff is all on Linux on AWS. I am not an Apple fan boi by any stretch of the imagination.
I beleive you. I always though that 68000 mac hardware was better than PCs. Apple made less hardware back then, but they used the same stuff that was on the servers so it was rock solid. I loved it.
So, what makes OSX infinitely more usable than Linux? Two things, usability and apps. There are no usable apps for regular stuff for Linux. Seriously. Show me an alternative to Photoshop, for example.
I can't show you an alternative to Photoshop, except GIMP, but I haven't used it for a production so I can't speak to usability, I'm told it's very powerful. What I can speak to is Audio production in Linux is hands down where the innovation is occurring. Sure, Mac maybe more usable, but that's a poweruser issue, not an innovation issue. My observations about many Apple applications is that they let you get to a level of good productivity real fast with a fantastic user experience at the expense of sheilding you from the power of the machine and making innovation less accessible. Sure that lets you be creative, but nothing out of the ordinary.
The usability paradigm in Linux attracts a different type of user. When I commit to an application I want to own the space and not be limited by the type of commercial imperatives that can alter my investment in learning, in that regard open source software is superior because sometimes the users also contribute to the code base. Obviously this does not exclude them from being a MAC user, that is the power of open source though.
I think people are too scared to explore because of what the constantly changing Windows environment did to them. Apples brilliance was taking people out of that paradigm, who can fault that move. However Apple also missed out on the significant advances in the Power PC CPU architecture, as IBM received a massive cash inflow of development from Microsoft *and* Sony, so they weren't that smart moving to intel. I'm certain Intel would have been aware of their strategic position though, when making that deal.
I'm curious about what languages you are developing in though, do you mind sharing?
The sad reality is not that OSX folks have a superiority complex, they quite possibly do, the sad thing is that when you point out that OSX beats Linux on everything, Linux users are sooo insecure they have to lash out. Get over your self, get rid of Linux (on your desktop) and be happier.
Wow, I would have said it was the other way around, I am just so damn comfortable in Linux that the UI is almost irrelevant. I have all the platforms in the house, including a powerbook for my wife. I thought that since Apple didn't have to pay for the use of an excellent O.S platform they could focus their effort on the UI - they did great job too, however I'm just not fond of how that UI context works, it's same reason I dumped Unity. Mac is more usable, but I feel limited, like the power of the machine is abstracted away from me. You're probably right but does my preference count? I don't care what others use, however is it ok for me to use Linux because I actually like the way it works and I'm happy with it? I am stupid for not using a MAC to code?
Please don't take offence, I'm not criticizing devs who use Macs either, I'm actually interested what I can learn about if there are things better than what I do. I'm not convinced that it is a
The article said they hired scantily clad “schoolgirl” dancers, I think if they hired schoolgirls to dance that would cross into the too weird.
I'm straight, but no, I wouldn't care. I don't feel threatened by buff guys dancing or gyrating or whatever.
I would, because it would not be an appropriate form of dance for such an event, it would not be cool. Neither would ballet dancing, which would include male and female dancers. This is not a sexual thing, which I think a lot of people are too obsessed with here, it's about picking the right form of performance art.
In fact, I tend to think it's actually discriminatory not to hire male dancers- hasn't the hue and cry for the last decade been all about "equality" and "equal opportunity"? Why should only women get a chance to make money by being employed as eye-candy at the trade show booths?
Exactly. There are a lot of really cool male performance dancers that probably could have actually brought in more female *gamers* and programmers not because it was a sexual thing, but because it would have looked fucking cool. Why is this just a discrimination against women thing here, I didn't see male dancers being employed. I didn't see the female dancers complaining that they were employed for *doing their peformance art* but I'm certain they will when they aren't.
Why is this just about more opportunities for females in IT (which I agree with)? Why isn't this also about more opportunities for male performance artists in a female dominated profession of dancing? Inclusion works both ways.
There is a high degree of non pragmatic thinking going on here getting too focused on how the SJW are offended at bros looking at hot chicks that completely ignores that MS actually did screw up, not because they choose to go with scantily clad dancers but because they chose an inappropriate performance art for the event.
Male performance artists were excluded as much as female programmers were excluded, so let's try to maintain some perspective about the difference between getting equal, which helps everyone and, getting even, which helps no-one.
a cyber attack.
That shook my nerves and it rattled my brain.
Fire and balls are two words you don't want to be used in a sentence describing your pants.
The TPP is an expression of American Empire for American Corporate citizens. Human citizens do not factor much in the parts of the TPP I have read (I only managed roughly 1000 pages) where law is referred to as "nullification", "obstruction" and "impediment". I can't see it being good for any nation that signs, even the US. While I was reading it, I found it was overwhelming in its reach.
What I think we are seeing can be best described as "extra-national corporate hedgemony" where nationality isn't as important as having dominance over a nations court system, which is the core of the treaty in the ISDS provisions. The taxpayer is thus co-erced into compensating the company to maintain profit margins for having to obey the law, of which the taxpayer is now *obliged* to do whilst providing a plan as to when the law will be wound back and removed.
There is no concern with common law, which is isolated, only *anything* to do with trade (including labour) where it is framed in such a way that corporate citizens can mold it, with plenty of time to do so. That's in the anti-corruption provisions - which is kind of ironic considering it is making something legal that was illegal.
Empire is irrelevant under the TPP, as is Nationality, more like a Corpocracy driven by a hidden autocracy to whom the wealth is funneled.
This is possibly the most insightful comment ever posted to slashdot, if people actually understood why it is so.
America's hidden aristocracy has learned from the British aristocracy that it is better to stay behind the scenes wielding influence and concealing power than to be a known target that can be criticized and accused.
The TPP marks the dying days of democratic process. I've spent some weeks trying to get my head around it's 6000 pages. I found the anti-corruption provisions of the TPP were completely one-sided and directed at the public services of signee nations with no obligations for signee nation to make provisions for corporations offering such corruption.
The TPP has been persistently pushed as an inevitable outcome. I only managed to get through 1000 pages which was enough to realize it's ratification announces the formal end of the democratic process' relevance to westernized nations.
The power elite in US has found the way to embed it's control over the world through a very slow progressive dumbing down of the populous and, careful application of fear combined with nationalism.
Whatever remains of peoples rights will now be converted, wholesale, into capital. This is the consequence of a shallow insular society with no concerns for protecting the democracy and freedom that protect them. Very sad.
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers tested this type of reactor (without fuel in it) and found that it leaks at 70psi. This was the first critical design basis issue. The second was the gate pair seals for the spent fuel pools would leak if they were not powered (IIUC they're inflated with compressed air). What this meant was that GE had to issue instructions to operators. S class facilities have to be constantly powered, this means the reactor and the spent fuel cooling pools. Means *had* to be provided for the reactor to always have power. They didn't and this is why this is criminal negligence at a board room level.
Exposure of these basis design issues meant that as the fuel became more critical in the reactor and the cooling pools they would produce the hydrogen that lead to the explosion. We knowthe spent fuel cool pools were leaking because there was about 450 tons of water above the fuel rods would keep them cool for about 7 days without additional cooling.
I have a theory about that. I think that the failing cooling pool is what stopped the reactor from rupturing. The water either broke the seal all at once or over came some threshold to arrive at the head of the reactor where most of it was converted to steam and hydrogen when exploding. It wouldn't have been the first time something some comedy of circumstance prevented a nuclear accident from being worse than it could have been.
I don't think these nutty nukkers place any value on the communities that Nuclear power destroys.
Thank you, I'll look it up. Great scoop btw - a pity I was too busy to get into this one.
impeachment, you completely propagandized dolt. Let me mansplain it to you:
You are also missing the point, and being a douchebag at the same time. The bigger picture was the opportunity for international nuclear disarmament treaty was lost which highlights the dysfunctional nature of two party politics. No steps forward, one step back.
1. 2.
It's was a good explanation. I wasn't aware of that, however it changes *nothing* about what I have said. The opportunity in history to make the world better was lost, as you mansplain, by Clinton's own folly which mansplains why his language in interacting with the press used specific legal terms. I would like to understand that part of history better however it is still irrelevant in terms of the point I have made.
The Magna Carta
Due process of law has been bypassed in the US by the Bush administration that appointed him the wartime powers to pass various terrorism acts. It was not restored by Obama so this apolitical issue is unlikely to ever be rectified.
Still and all, he serves the American public
My point was that he could have delivered an arms treaty that would have made the world a better place and been a great man for doing so.
Just because you and I don't care doesn't change that fact.
Well my point was that people care more about what his cock was doing and forget that a great opportunity was lost. You pretty much proved my point.
Listen fool.
I wasn't actually directing Seriously, so fucking what that at you, just at the general situation. I should have made that clearer.
You know, if ole Bill had managed to control his pecker
Seriously, so fucking what. Bill got his dick sucked by a young saucy intern - welcome to the world of having testosterone. If I was Bill I'd have looked the camera in the eye and said "Fuck yeah I had sex with her, I'm only human - I'll apologize to my wife but the rest of you can get in line and suck whatever is left. Next question."
If you wanted a reason to impeach Clinton it should have been for not taking a case of the finest Kentucky Bourbon whiskey he could find, presented it to Boris Yeltzin and said "Sign this Nuclear Disarmament treaty motherfucker and you can have this to get you started"
One thing readers should pay attention to and one trick the unscrupulous should stop pulling is talking about the capacity factor
Insightful++
please mod up!