No, it's not fair to arbitrarily have 18 as the age, but there is no other accepted metric for separating youthful impessionistic people from adults within our society.
Who accepts this metric? How many people that accept it have ever evaluated its worth? Most of them accept it because it's the way it's always been, or because $GOVERNMENT_MOUTHPIECE says you have to accept it.
The only people in a position to make an evaluation of a person's maturity are the ones that know them well.
Nobody I am currently working with has any plans whatsoever to migrate to Vista; most are still in the motions of moving to XP, if they even went that far. I'm not sure what huge features Vista is supposed to offer people, but I believe Microsoft may have themselves a real problem there.
And among knowledgable users, who's gonna upgrade? The hardware requirements are steep, new features have been cut or scaled back, and MS is even considering offering the new Vista features as updates to XP!
Really, unless pull an asshole stunt like convincing $GAME_PUBLISHER to make Vista a requirement for $HOT_NEW_GAME, I don't see many people who have XP upgrading. Of course, we can probably count on the first post-Vista version of Office being shackled to Vista.
This will actually help people, I think, because it will prevent people from getting extraneous software that might increase their risk of attack.
But it's not the extraneous software that's vulnerable to attack. It's the stuff that will be in every version of Vista: Outlook, Internet Explorer, and all those damn services that listen for remote connections.
As I type my carpets are still wet from last night's rains that poured through the machine room wall - and this happens every time it downpours I'm told.
Jeebus! Tell them to fix that immediately, and if they say no, ask the local fire marshall to take a look at it. That would probably motivate them to fix it.
In general, I'd say you're in for a class-A headache. As I learned in high school, most teachers know jack shit about technology. Even basic terminology is a problem. (I heard all about this from my AP Comp Sci teacher.)
Re:Why won't companies get a clue?!?!
on
GoldenEye:Source
·
· Score: 1
But ideally not using somebody else's trademarks and intellectual property (yes, a dirty, dirty phrase!) without permission.
Ideally, that would not be necessary. Ideally, Free Radical would say, "Hey, I bet those PC guys would like some hot Goldeneye-style lovin'", and proceed to port TimeSplitters 3 to the PC.
Unfortunately, the ideal rarely occurs, which is where, in the games industry, modders come into play. I won't argue about the legality--it's not legal. However, the morality is hardly questionable, IMO. It's a not-for-profit project that certainly won't harm anyone's sales. If anything, it'll help sales, since I'll buy a copy of Half-life 2 once the GE:Source guys release something playable.
I just hope they have enough team members outside US jurisdiction to sucessfully skirt our IP laws.;)
Thanks! I only switched to Linux about a month ago, so I have a lot to learn.
And for a much easier way to change your bg you can always use gnome-background-properties
The problem is that, without Nautilus, GNOME doesn't properly set the background on log-in. Now that may only be because I'm using gdm to manage sessions, and it sets its own background.
Anyway, right after I posted, I discovered that my method for setting the background at login is not reliable! D'oh!
What I just found that does work is the wmsetbg command. It's part of WindowMaker, but it is window-manager agnostic. Replace that dconftool-2 command with "wmsetbg/path/to/your/image.jpg". (You'll want to check the man page to find what options you want to use, i.e., centered, tiled, etc.) This seems to work flawlessly.
How to kill Nautilus (sort of OT but useful!)
on
GNOME 2.12 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Okay, I know a lot of people dislike Nautilus, and I think it keeps a lot of people away from GNOME. Here's how to kill it for good:
1) Find a better filer! It's not that hard. Try "gentoo" (the filer, not the distro), and "rox-filer" for starters. 2) Run gnome-session-properties from an xterm. 3) Find Nautilus' entry in the "Current Session" tab. 4) Click "Remove", then "Apply". Bam! No more Nautilus. 5) To make the change stick, close all the apps you don't want to run when you log-in and then log out. Be sure to check the "Save current setup" box. 6) Profit!
GNOME will now start more quickly. However, you will not have a desktop background or icons, unless you're already using a non-GNOME utility to set them. The background is easy enough:
1) Open up gnome-session-properties again. Go to the "Startup Programs" tab. 2) Click "Add" and input the following: gconftool-2 --type string --set/desktop/gnome/background/picture_filename/path/to/your/background.jpg 3) Leave the "Order" field set to 50 (trust me on this one!), hit "Okay", and close the session tool.
Your background should be displayed next time you log in. Note that, if you somehow screw this up (say, by setting a order value that's too low), you can fix it from text mode by editing the ~/.gnome2/session-manual file. Just wipe out everything under [Default].
The icons are a bit trickier, and maybe not worth it. You need a program like desklaunch to create desktop icons. I suggest just creating a new hideable panel and putting launchers on it instead, since desklaunch requires you to explicitly set x and y pixel positions for icons. If anyone knows of a better prog than desklaunch, please chime in.
As for smallpox, I don't know why we have it. Maybe it is like AIDS, and we need to get rid of a certain kind of immoral people?
What a Christ-like thing to say.
AIDS is only passed on between fags and drug users. The innocent victims are the wives who get infected by the husbands who visit prostitues, and the poor people who get bad blood transfusions.
The second sentence contradicts the first, and you forgot the children of victims of AIDS.
Did you ever think if we did not have fags, we would not be wasting money trying to cure a disease that will cure itself? Maybe we could fight cancer?
With what? Prayer? We know from reading your previous posts (and statements below this one) that fighting cancer with science is out of the question for you.
And what do we have from "splicing" genes? Genetically engineered corn that the rich will never eat, that is only to be forced on the poor?
Do you think the rich care where their corn comes from? In my experience, they're generally not superstitious.
It causes cancer.
*sigh* Proof or STFU.
Just like the factories and their toxic gas. It is like cigarettes, when Malbro said they are safe. Where is science then, in the 60's and 70's?
This just doesn't make any sense. Tobacco companies != science. Cigarettes have had warning labels for decades, courtesy of scientists called doctors.
Look, here is the TRUTH. Humans will never understand basic physics or chemistry. We can measure. THAT IS ALL WE CAN DO.
That may be all that you can do, but some of us are able to take those measurements and form hypotheses explaining them. Later, if the hypothesis has not been disproved, we call them theories, and accept them as fact until a more complete theory comes along. This process has served us quite well for a very long time.
And we can't even measure everything. Want proof? Measure the speed of an electron and where it is at THE SAME TIME. Or explain to me how gravity works. WHY?? And give me something more than two items attract each other. That is so gay!
Why don't you tell me why one plus one is two? And don't give me that lame "because two is one more than one" crap. Christ! Please, consider the following:
A) Facts can only be decomposed so far. Hence my challenge to give a better explanation of why one plus one is two. B) You don't need to understand something completely to make use of it. C) Thus far, we've measured and explained thousands of things that we cannot see. In fact, the only notable thing I can think of that we cannot see that we have not been able to measure is God. Perhaps you should take this as a hint to not offer religion as an alternative to science, since the two institutions have entirely different goals.
Many of Teresa's donors were evidently under the impression that their money was being used to build hospitals. In 1991, Dr. Robin Fox, then editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard". He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.
Fox conceded that the regimen he observed included cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and kindness, but he noted that the sisters' approach to managing pain was "disturbingly lacking". The formulary at the facility Fox visited lacked strong analgesics which he felt clearly separated Mother Teresa's approach from the hospice movement. There have been a series of other reports documenting inattention to medical care in the order's facilities. Similar points of view have also been expressed by some former volunteers who worked for Teresa's order. Mother Teresa herself referred to the facilities as "Houses of the Dying".
In contrast to the conditions at her homes, Mother Teresa sought medical treatment for herself at renowned medical clinics in the United States, Europe, and India, drawing charges of hypocrisy from critics such as Hitchens.
Worthy of sainthood? Doesn't quite sound like it. But it doesn't really matter, since the ceremony doesn't mean anything.
The FSF agrees with you, you know. In the GPL FAQ, it's written that if your code is shorter than the GPL, it's probably not worth it to put it under the GPL.
Right. Because the best way to improve a sector isn't to start a competing, better business - it's to whinge to the incumbent monopoly as loudly as possible.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The best way to improve a sector is to convince Google to start a competing service. Hear that, guys? Get started on it in your 20% time!
Cancelled my PayPal account. Swore at them in the comments field, but I also tried to make helpful suggestions for improving their service. Like unfreezing Lowtax's account and crediting him the transaction fees.
Media bias is probably only rooted in ignorance and a desire to "make news" rather than report the facts, but have you considered that console videogames are in direct competition with broadcast and cable television? For people that only have one set, they can either watch TV or little Billy can play his videogames. I cannot claim that this is why the media likes to demonize games (it's not--they aren't that smart), but it is an interesting way of looking at the situation.
The Senator is right. What I can't understand is why a buyer cannot get their money back immediately if a seller's account is frozen. It would be so simple.
As it is right now, PayPal can do whatever the fuck they want with all that money, and the people who wanted it to go to the Red Cross are left in the lurch.
I've closed my PayPal account, and I told them exactly why. I hope Google starts a payment service of their own, preferably one with support for easy micropayments. We could really use a micropayment system backed by a heavyweight like Google.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not fair to arbitrarily have 18 as the age, but there is no other accepted metric for separating youthful impessionistic people from adults within our society.
Who accepts this metric? How many people that accept it have ever evaluated its worth? Most of them accept it because it's the way it's always been, or because $GOVERNMENT_MOUTHPIECE says you have to accept it.
The only people in a position to make an evaluation of a person's maturity are the ones that know them well.
Nobody I am currently working with has any plans whatsoever to migrate to Vista; most are still in the motions of moving to XP, if they even went that far. I'm not sure what huge features Vista is supposed to offer people, but I believe Microsoft may have themselves a real problem there.
And among knowledgable users, who's gonna upgrade? The hardware requirements are steep, new features have been cut or scaled back, and MS is even considering offering the new Vista features as updates to XP!
Really, unless pull an asshole stunt like convincing $GAME_PUBLISHER to make Vista a requirement for $HOT_NEW_GAME, I don't see many people who have XP upgrading. Of course, we can probably count on the first post-Vista version of Office being shackled to Vista.
This will actually help people, I think, because it will prevent people from getting extraneous software that might increase their risk of attack.
But it's not the extraneous software that's vulnerable to attack. It's the stuff that will be in every version of Vista: Outlook, Internet Explorer, and all those damn services that listen for remote connections.
Isn't DDOSing a pirated movie download a bit bald faced for a NEWS SOURCE?
Fixed it for you.
I haven't tried it yet, but rox is capable of managing desktop icons and wallpaper. Best of all, it exists seperately from the excellent rox-filer.
In the words of the fictional "MC Hawking", what we need more of is science.
MC Hawking is my homie, you insensitive clod!
I plan to work for Weyland-Yutani, you insensitive clod!
Maybe Playboy can get some new people to appreciate all that print porn has to offer.
Sticky pages?
As I type my carpets are still wet from last night's rains that poured through the machine room wall - and this happens every time it downpours I'm told.
Jeebus! Tell them to fix that immediately, and if they say no, ask the local fire marshall to take a look at it. That would probably motivate them to fix it.
In general, I'd say you're in for a class-A headache. As I learned in high school, most teachers know jack shit about technology. Even basic terminology is a problem. (I heard all about this from my AP Comp Sci teacher.)
http://www.opcoder.com/projects/chrono/
But ideally not using somebody else's trademarks and intellectual property (yes, a dirty, dirty phrase!) without permission.
;)
Ideally, that would not be necessary. Ideally, Free Radical would say, "Hey, I bet those PC guys would like some hot Goldeneye-style lovin'", and proceed to port TimeSplitters 3 to the PC.
Unfortunately, the ideal rarely occurs, which is where, in the games industry, modders come into play. I won't argue about the legality--it's not legal. However, the morality is hardly questionable, IMO. It's a not-for-profit project that certainly won't harm anyone's sales. If anything, it'll help sales, since I'll buy a copy of Half-life 2 once the GE:Source guys release something playable.
I just hope they have enough team members outside US jurisdiction to sucessfully skirt our IP laws.
$ gnome-session-remove nautilus; gnome-session-save
/path/to/your/image.jpg". (You'll want to check the man page to find what options you want to use, i.e., centered, tiled, etc.) This seems to work flawlessly.
Thanks! I only switched to Linux about a month ago, so I have a lot to learn.
And for a much easier way to change your bg you can always use gnome-background-properties
The problem is that, without Nautilus, GNOME doesn't properly set the background on log-in. Now that may only be because I'm using gdm to manage sessions, and it sets its own background.
Anyway, right after I posted, I discovered that my method for setting the background at login is not reliable! D'oh!
What I just found that does work is the wmsetbg command. It's part of WindowMaker, but it is window-manager agnostic. Replace that dconftool-2 command with "wmsetbg
Okay, I know a lot of people dislike Nautilus, and I think it keeps a lot of people away from GNOME. Here's how to kill it for good:
/desktop/gnome/background/picture_filename /path/to/your/background.jpg
1) Find a better filer! It's not that hard. Try "gentoo" (the filer, not the distro), and "rox-filer" for starters.
2) Run gnome-session-properties from an xterm.
3) Find Nautilus' entry in the "Current Session" tab.
4) Click "Remove", then "Apply". Bam! No more Nautilus.
5) To make the change stick, close all the apps you don't want to run when you log-in and then log out. Be sure to check the "Save current setup" box.
6) Profit!
GNOME will now start more quickly. However, you will not have a desktop background or icons, unless you're already using a non-GNOME utility to set them. The background is easy enough:
1) Open up gnome-session-properties again. Go to the "Startup Programs" tab.
2) Click "Add" and input the following: gconftool-2 --type string --set
3) Leave the "Order" field set to 50 (trust me on this one!), hit "Okay", and close the session tool.
Your background should be displayed next time you log in. Note that, if you somehow screw this up (say, by setting a order value that's too low), you can fix it from text mode by editing the ~/.gnome2/session-manual file. Just wipe out everything under [Default].
The icons are a bit trickier, and maybe not worth it. You need a program like desklaunch to create desktop icons. I suggest just creating a new hideable panel and putting launchers on it instead, since desklaunch requires you to explicitly set x and y pixel positions for icons. If anyone knows of a better prog than desklaunch, please chime in.
As for smallpox, I don't know why we have it. Maybe it is like AIDS, and we need to get rid of a certain kind of immoral people?
What a Christ-like thing to say.
AIDS is only passed on between fags and drug users. The innocent victims are the wives who get infected by the husbands who visit prostitues, and the poor people who get bad blood transfusions.
The second sentence contradicts the first, and you forgot the children of victims of AIDS.
Did you ever think if we did not have fags, we would not be wasting money trying to cure a disease that will cure itself? Maybe we could fight cancer?
With what? Prayer? We know from reading your previous posts (and statements below this one) that fighting cancer with science is out of the question for you.
And what do we have from "splicing" genes? Genetically engineered corn that the rich will never eat, that is only to be forced on the poor?
Do you think the rich care where their corn comes from? In my experience, they're generally not superstitious.
It causes cancer.
*sigh* Proof or STFU.
Just like the factories and their toxic gas. It is like cigarettes, when Malbro said they are safe. Where is science then, in the 60's and 70's?
This just doesn't make any sense. Tobacco companies != science. Cigarettes have had warning labels for decades, courtesy of scientists called doctors.
Look, here is the TRUTH. Humans will never understand basic physics or chemistry. We can measure. THAT IS ALL WE CAN DO.
That may be all that you can do, but some of us are able to take those measurements and form hypotheses explaining them. Later, if the hypothesis has not been disproved, we call them theories, and accept them as fact until a more complete theory comes along. This process has served us quite well for a very long time.
And we can't even measure everything. Want proof? Measure the speed of an electron and where it is at THE SAME TIME. Or explain to me how gravity works. WHY?? And give me something more than two items attract each other. That is so gay!
Why don't you tell me why one plus one is two? And don't give me that lame "because two is one more than one" crap. Christ! Please, consider the following:
A) Facts can only be decomposed so far. Hence my challenge to give a better explanation of why one plus one is two.
B) You don't need to understand something completely to make use of it.
C) Thus far, we've measured and explained thousands of things that we cannot see. In fact, the only notable thing I can think of that we cannot see that we have not been able to measure is God. Perhaps you should take this as a hint to not offer religion as an alternative to science, since the two institutions have entirely different goals.
Please, don't be a wanker.
Interesting. Wikipedia has this to say about her:
Many of Teresa's donors were evidently under the impression that their money was being used to build hospitals. In 1991, Dr. Robin Fox, then editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard". He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.
Fox conceded that the regimen he observed included cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and kindness, but he noted that the sisters' approach to managing pain was "disturbingly lacking". The formulary at the facility Fox visited lacked strong analgesics which he felt clearly separated Mother Teresa's approach from the hospice movement. There have been a series of other reports documenting inattention to medical care in the order's facilities. Similar points of view have also been expressed by some former volunteers who worked for Teresa's order. Mother Teresa herself referred to the facilities as "Houses of the Dying".
In contrast to the conditions at her homes, Mother Teresa sought medical treatment for herself at renowned medical clinics in the United States, Europe, and India, drawing charges of hypocrisy from critics such as Hitchens.
Worthy of sainthood? Doesn't quite sound like it. But it doesn't really matter, since the ceremony doesn't mean anything.
The FSF agrees with you, you know. In the GPL FAQ, it's written that if your code is shorter than the GPL, it's probably not worth it to put it under the GPL.
:P
What about Perl?
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
More importantly, what's to stop them from cornering you in a dark alley, holding you down, and cutting out your chip to use for their own purposes?
Now I'll be getting email about increasing the size of my penis' fourth, fifth, and sixth dimensions!
Right. Because the best way to improve a sector isn't to start a competing, better business - it's to whinge to the incumbent monopoly as loudly as possible.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The best way to improve a sector is to convince Google to start a competing service. Hear that, guys? Get started on it in your 20% time!
Cancelled my PayPal account. Swore at them in the comments field, but I also tried to make helpful suggestions for improving their service. Like unfreezing Lowtax's account and crediting him the transaction fees.
Media bias is probably only rooted in ignorance and a desire to "make news" rather than report the facts, but have you considered that console videogames are in direct competition with broadcast and cable television? For people that only have one set, they can either watch TV or little Billy can play his videogames. I cannot claim that this is why the media likes to demonize games (it's not--they aren't that smart), but it is an interesting way of looking at the situation.
The Senator is right. What I can't understand is why a buyer cannot get their money back immediately if a seller's account is frozen. It would be so simple.
As it is right now, PayPal can do whatever the fuck they want with all that money, and the people who wanted it to go to the Red Cross are left in the lurch.
I've closed my PayPal account, and I told them exactly why. I hope Google starts a payment service of their own, preferably one with support for easy micropayments. We could really use a micropayment system backed by a heavyweight like Google.
It turns out the actual detection wasn't the key, but filtering out all of the RF 'pollution' produced by nearby gadgets.
Thanks for ruining the ending!