I said this half-jokingly as many of these disruptive changes have been made in response to Apple's popularity and explosion in the tablet/phone market.
I see these OSs merging in terms of how they perceive user tasks. The old Unix/Windows model was that you had a bunch of applications running simultaneously, which the user had to manage themselves. In Mac, it feels like the emphasis is on working with one application at a time. This can be seen when the (File, Edit, View, etc) menus change context with respect to the selected application. Unity, and it looks like Gnome 3, are moving in this direction.
For users who are used to one style, completely revamping the UI also means revamping and disrupting everyone's personal workflow. What if I want to browse and code simultaneously? If the UI prohibits such behavior, than I'll have a hard time getting work done.
I don't have a problem with the changes, but I do have a problem with these changes getting shoved down everyone's throat without proper support to revert to a classic look. A lot of the 'core' features that are being added, could simply be mods on top of the existing desktop instead of the buggy restructuring that's currently going on.
Just a minor correction, but Amazon is slightly better in that you can buy a non-DRM mp3 and back it up to your hearts delight (provided you register a computer to download from them). But otherwise, your point does stand that physical media has intrinsic value due to owning it. I dread the day when we go pure digital and lose fundamental rights not just to music/movies but books (i.e. knowledge) as well.
But the flip side is that if women stay more "private" and at home, kids and families benefit. American physical and mental health has been getting worse and worse as both parents usually work and start eating crap. Now everybody is obese. Everybody is busy and stressed so they spend less quality time with the rest of the family. Kids start hanging out with bad kids. Divorce is still 50% last time I checked. Stress disorders abound.
Yes, but why do women have to be the ones to stay home? Aside from the first 6 months or so of nurturing, any household task that can be handled by a woman could be handled by a man. Having some kind of work/life balance is good. Dumping all those responsibilities on an individual just because of their gender or some historical notion of roles is unjust.
Why the hell can't we progress unless there's some bogeyman to 'win' against. It seems like the same people who want to cripple funding for the sciences and technology suddenly get interested if someone else puts bigger phallic-shaped rockets into space. Oh no! The Chinese might establish a space station! Well good for them. I hope they continue doing well, as that seems to be the only thing that will drag us out from our caves.
Racial impurity is a social construct not a scientific one.DNA just exists. People with different DNA exist based entirely on the random mutations that occur within DNA and the natural jumbling that occurs at conception. You can NEVER have a pure or identical specimen because natural life proceeds through change. Therefore, the notion of purity is established as arbitrary minute differences that can always change to fit someone's political agenda.
Increasing the data cap is a small step in the right direction, but unfortunately Comcast continues to treat its own Internet delivered video different under the cap than other Internet delivered video. We continue to stand by the principle that ISPs should treat all providers of video services equally. Cnet News
Found an interesting quote which highlights some of the points I was thinking about:
When you dehumanize a person, you can justify any crime you carry out upon them
The internet like any other information medium can be used to help or harm someone. If we're not aware of its capacity to harm someone like encouraging someone's guilt or inciting a war, our naivete could allow gross forms of injustice to occur.
I'd argue that different communities already enact a type of self-censorship. E.g. forums not allowed to show porn or use abusive languages. Members of these communities are usually ok with this type of censorship because they a) don't own the site and b) probably do not have strong opinions against the policy. Also, they don't have to view the material to be 'informed' about it.
I think there are many aspects that make it difficult to have a debate about internet censorship that doesn't lead to knee jerk reactions. Those aspects would be: 1) definition of censorship and 2) definition of the role of the internet.
For example, I may consider censorship as a form of banning illegal material: murder, rape, child abuse, etc. I'm sure if you started up a server that hosted outright snuff, society would find a way to shut you down.
For point 2, if the internet is considered a service in that it just sends bits to you, then adding a layer of censorship could inherently harm its usage. If it's a content delivery system then deciding what content to show/not show may make sense.
I'm not trolling for an argument. Rather I'm trying to understand what different people's interpretation of censorship and internet are.
I mostly agree with your point. But there are some things I wouldn't mind seeing censored: hate speech and real violence to other people (for the sake of promoting violence). Censorship can be used as a brutal means of thought-control. But, I also think it can be used to establish healthy normative behaviors within a community. What happens when the line between entertainment or health curiosity is blurred with the accepted abuse of another gender or race? Do we as a society shut abusive types of media down or give up on censorship because it can only lead to inevitable misuse?
I ask these questions because I really don't have a good answer for them. : /
No. The problem is, this task depends on a LOT of contextual information that simply is not in the medication list. Like what is the patient taking from another doctor? Is the patient taking their pills? Did they stop due to: unknown reaction, felt better, forgot, rationing the pills because they cost too much, or didn't feel like it? Are the pills actually helping? Are there any conditions which may affect the effectiveness of the pills? (using pills as a catchall for whatever is prescribed). Sometimes the complete medication list is not stored in the computer or even in a collection of files across computers, but can only be revealed through patient-doctor interaction. And it's not just the pharmacist who performs reconciliation, rather this task may be performed at different levels of care by focusing on a different facet of the patient. Despite how useful computers are, there's a lot of process they simply cannot replace; streamline: maybe, replace: no.
True. When it's 2-3 people, an individual tends to put a lock on it until they've done all their changes (2-3 days max). If the group becomes larger, it gets placed on a website; People edit the document and upload their most recent copy. Ultimately, there is some group coordination that goes on beforehand and Word becomes a poor-man's version control. Dealing with these hassles in an organized fashion is still cheaper (for time) than requiring everyone to learn LaTeX+svn.
Ya, but when everyone around you uses word or google docs in a collaborative fashion, it's much harder to convince everyone else to go with revision control+latex. WISYWIG+built in revision control ends up being the path of least resistance when including non-engineer folks in the loop. Plus it's easier to edit someone else's content without having to parse the LaTeX syntax every time.
If I wanted superior formatting control, I'd use LaTeX. The primary reason I'm stuck with MS Word, and sometimes google docs, is due to superior collaboration tools: change tracking, multiple views for revision and final draft; identifiers for whose made changes where (provided the userid has been setup properly); notes/comments in the margins.
For the record, I haven't taken the recent version LibreOffice for a spin. But from what I remember of OpenOffice, these features were not that functional. I thought OpenOffice was a decent piece of software, but it's still based on prior definitions of what a documenting software has been, rather than what it could be.
That is true, however, you don't need to understand all the millions of lines of code of the kernel in order to do development, just as you don't need to understand the complete implementation of the C library, or the Java runtime, in order to do desktop application development.
Probably not, but I wouldn't trust any line of code I write in a large complex system, without doing system-wide unit tests and real-world tests to ensure nothing broke. I think what some of the above posters are getting at is that system complexity, not kernel-coding complexity, prevents you from plugging any developer in to just patch things up. We don't view kernel coding in awe, we view the systems as a whole in awe as well as the developers who built it from the ground up, because it takes time, experience, and expertise, on par with being a trained surgeon WITH 30+ years of experience.
Wow, you really drank the Cool-ade.Too bad you haven't bumbled upon any facts in your staggering crawl to suck on Obama's ass. The fact that the 1% that you are so upset about not paying their fair share of fed taxes are currently paying more than 1/3 of all taxes, while the lower 50% pay nothing. How is that not paying anything? It's just another Obama lie. You must be so proud of keeping his nether regions so sparkly cle
"Fair share" is a term concocted by the conservative to twist the reality of the situation. Since a number of legislative rules have passed, more and more wealth has become concentrated into the hands of the wealthy few. When I say wealthy, I don't necessarily mean people making a 6 figure income, more so 7+. This would be known as the trickle up theory of economics. This is considered bad because it slows down the economy has a whole since fewer people can afford to purchase stuff and wealthy people don't necessarily spend it fast enough. You do make a semi-valid point that a large percentage of the population does not pay taxes, but this is because those people are at or just below the poverty line. Most of their income is being funneled into loans, groceries, and other necessities. The government doesn't tax them because it's not as effective as taxing the rich, percentage wise. You could tax several poor people at a rate of 30% but this probably wouldn't bring in the same income as taxing the mega rich at 1%. Logistically and ethically, taxing the poor would be bad PR, harder to accomplish, and wouldn't provide the same yield. (disclaimer: I'm biased towards returning the tax levels to Clinton-era levels, which is probably about a 3 percentage point hike to 39%).
And why can't people protect themselves from intruders? I'll bet you haven't researched anything about the shooting beyond your hatred of "rich" people. If facts don't fit your hate filled template, you probably just ignore them. I guess you better loot and burn down all the stores in your area, like they did in the LA riots. That will prove that you can... loot and burn down stores?
People are certainly justified to protect themselves. But, the OP is referencing a story in which an individual went out of his way to stalk a teen boy and shoot him. Race may or may not have been an issue, but the situation certainly seems like it could have been avoidable on the shooter's part. The kid was simply carrying skittles and talking to his girlfriend on the phone. Also, the shooting did not take place on the shooter's property (maybe near it but not on it). All of this suggests that the shooter was not acting on self-defense. Maybe a jumped up sense of paranoia, but not self defense. Though, I'm sure more details will come to light when this goes to trial.
You're right. Those are bad examples. I guess the point I was trying to make is that there is a lot of imbalance that exists, which those in power do not pursue with the fervor. Megauploads, does not explicitly distribute copyrighted materials but enables it, putting it on some darkish-gray line with respect to the law. Meanwhile there are other practices which fall in some similar gray area, but little effort is made to correct for them.
I think the problem here is not that he's rich and probably of questionable morals, but that there is an imbalance of justice that is being applied. Here, there is a concerted effort to pursue an individual who is key in distributing probably millions of dollars worth in copyrights. Meanwhile, the justice system couldn't give two shits about prosecuting bankers for predatory loan practiced or curtailing insider trading among congress critters. As such, this event doesn't demonstrate one guy getting nailed for doing something wrong but rather one rich group going after a slightly less-rich individual to protect their profits. This activities of the former even extend to the non-rich individuals. Given this, it's hard to be cheerful when justice is not being applied for justice's-sake but rather for moneyed interests.
Slashdot Mirror
I said this half-jokingly as many of these disruptive changes have been made in response to Apple's popularity and explosion in the tablet/phone market.
I see these OSs merging in terms of how they perceive user tasks. The old Unix/Windows model was that you had a bunch of applications running simultaneously, which the user had to manage themselves. In Mac, it feels like the emphasis is on working with one application at a time. This can be seen when the (File, Edit, View, etc) menus change context with respect to the selected application. Unity, and it looks like Gnome 3, are moving in this direction.
For users who are used to one style, completely revamping the UI also means revamping and disrupting everyone's personal workflow. What if I want to browse and code simultaneously? If the UI prohibits such behavior, than I'll have a hard time getting work done.
I don't have a problem with the changes, but I do have a problem with these changes getting shoved down everyone's throat without proper support to revert to a classic look. A lot of the 'core' features that are being added, could simply be mods on top of the existing desktop instead of the buggy restructuring that's currently going on.
After a few more iterations, it'll look just like OS X.
:P
Just a minor correction, but Amazon is slightly better in that you can buy a non-DRM mp3 and back it up to your hearts delight (provided you register a computer to download from them). But otherwise, your point does stand that physical media has intrinsic value due to owning it. I dread the day when we go pure digital and lose fundamental rights not just to music/movies but books (i.e. knowledge) as well.
But the flip side is that if women stay more "private" and at home, kids and families benefit. American physical and mental health has been getting worse and worse as both parents usually work and start eating crap. Now everybody is obese. Everybody is busy and stressed so they spend less quality time with the rest of the family. Kids start hanging out with bad kids. Divorce is still 50% last time I checked. Stress disorders abound.
Yes, but why do women have to be the ones to stay home? Aside from the first 6 months or so of nurturing, any household task that can be handled by a woman could be handled by a man. Having some kind of work/life balance is good. Dumping all those responsibilities on an individual just because of their gender or some historical notion of roles is unjust.
On that note, his sample size seems a bit small...
Why the hell can't we progress unless there's some bogeyman to 'win' against. It seems like the same people who want to cripple funding for the sciences and technology suddenly get interested if someone else puts bigger phallic-shaped rockets into space. Oh no! The Chinese might establish a space station! Well good for them. I hope they continue doing well, as that seems to be the only thing that will drag us out from our caves.
Racial impurity is a social construct not a scientific one.DNA just exists. People with different DNA exist based entirely on the random mutations that occur within DNA and the natural jumbling that occurs at conception. You can NEVER have a pure or identical specimen because natural life proceeds through change. Therefore, the notion of purity is established as arbitrary minute differences that can always change to fit someone's political agenda.
orly?
Increasing the data cap is a small step in the right direction, but unfortunately Comcast continues to treat its own Internet delivered video different under the cap than other Internet delivered video. We continue to stand by the principle that ISPs should treat all providers of video services equally.
Cnet News
When you dehumanize a person, you can justify any crime you carry out upon them
The internet like any other information medium can be used to help or harm someone. If we're not aware of its capacity to harm someone like encouraging someone's guilt or inciting a war, our naivete could allow gross forms of injustice to occur.
I'd argue that different communities already enact a type of self-censorship. E.g. forums not allowed to show porn or use abusive languages. Members of these communities are usually ok with this type of censorship because they a) don't own the site and b) probably do not have strong opinions against the policy. Also, they don't have to view the material to be 'informed' about it.
I think there are many aspects that make it difficult to have a debate about internet censorship that doesn't lead to knee jerk reactions. Those aspects would be: 1) definition of censorship and 2) definition of the role of the internet.
For example, I may consider censorship as a form of banning illegal material: murder, rape, child abuse, etc. I'm sure if you started up a server that hosted outright snuff, society would find a way to shut you down.
For point 2, if the internet is considered a service in that it just sends bits to you, then adding a layer of censorship could inherently harm its usage. If it's a content delivery system then deciding what content to show/not show may make sense.
I'm not trolling for an argument. Rather I'm trying to understand what different people's interpretation of censorship and internet are.
I mostly agree with your point. But there are some things I wouldn't mind seeing censored: hate speech and real violence to other people (for the sake of promoting violence). Censorship can be used as a brutal means of thought-control. But, I also think it can be used to establish healthy normative behaviors within a community. What happens when the line between entertainment or health curiosity is blurred with the accepted abuse of another gender or race? Do we as a society shut abusive types of media down or give up on censorship because it can only lead to inevitable misuse?
I ask these questions because I really don't have a good answer for them. : /
No. The problem is, this task depends on a LOT of contextual information that simply is not in the medication list. Like what is the patient taking from another doctor? Is the patient taking their pills? Did they stop due to: unknown reaction, felt better, forgot, rationing the pills because they cost too much, or didn't feel like it? Are the pills actually helping? Are there any conditions which may affect the effectiveness of the pills? (using pills as a catchall for whatever is prescribed). Sometimes the complete medication list is not stored in the computer or even in a collection of files across computers, but can only be revealed through patient-doctor interaction. And it's not just the pharmacist who performs reconciliation, rather this task may be performed at different levels of care by focusing on a different facet of the patient. Despite how useful computers are, there's a lot of process they simply cannot replace; streamline: maybe, replace: no.
That sounds like how most grant-funded research occurs.
True. When it's 2-3 people, an individual tends to put a lock on it until they've done all their changes (2-3 days max). If the group becomes larger, it gets placed on a website; People edit the document and upload their most recent copy. Ultimately, there is some group coordination that goes on beforehand and Word becomes a poor-man's version control. Dealing with these hassles in an organized fashion is still cheaper (for time) than requiring everyone to learn LaTeX+svn.
Nice. I look forward to that update. I hope it's compatible with docx; that would make it easier to transition between the two.
Ya, but when everyone around you uses word or google docs in a collaborative fashion, it's much harder to convince everyone else to go with revision control+latex. WISYWIG+built in revision control ends up being the path of least resistance when including non-engineer folks in the loop. Plus it's easier to edit someone else's content without having to parse the LaTeX syntax every time.
If I wanted superior formatting control, I'd use LaTeX. The primary reason I'm stuck with MS Word, and sometimes google docs, is due to superior collaboration tools: change tracking, multiple views for revision and final draft; identifiers for whose made changes where (provided the userid has been setup properly); notes/comments in the margins.
For the record, I haven't taken the recent version LibreOffice for a spin. But from what I remember of OpenOffice, these features were not that functional. I thought OpenOffice was a decent piece of software, but it's still based on prior definitions of what a documenting software has been, rather than what it could be.
That is true, however, you don't need to understand all the millions of lines of code of the kernel in order to do development, just as you don't need to understand the complete implementation of the C library, or the Java runtime, in order to do desktop application development.
Probably not, but I wouldn't trust any line of code I write in a large complex system, without doing system-wide unit tests and real-world tests to ensure nothing broke. I think what some of the above posters are getting at is that system complexity, not kernel-coding complexity, prevents you from plugging any developer in to just patch things up. We don't view kernel coding in awe, we view the systems as a whole in awe as well as the developers who built it from the ground up, because it takes time, experience, and expertise, on par with being a trained surgeon WITH 30+ years of experience.
Now we can have the blue cube of death!
Wow, you really drank the Cool-ade.Too bad you haven't bumbled upon any facts in your staggering crawl to suck on Obama's ass. The fact that the 1% that you are so upset about not paying their fair share of fed taxes are currently paying more than 1/3 of all taxes, while the lower 50% pay nothing. How is that not paying anything? It's just another Obama lie. You must be so proud of keeping his nether regions so sparkly cle
"Fair share" is a term concocted by the conservative to twist the reality of the situation. Since a number of legislative rules have passed, more and more wealth has become concentrated into the hands of the wealthy few. When I say wealthy, I don't necessarily mean people making a 6 figure income, more so 7+. This would be known as the trickle up theory of economics. This is considered bad because it slows down the economy has a whole since fewer people can afford to purchase stuff and wealthy people don't necessarily spend it fast enough. You do make a semi-valid point that a large percentage of the population does not pay taxes, but this is because those people are at or just below the poverty line. Most of their income is being funneled into loans, groceries, and other necessities. The government doesn't tax them because it's not as effective as taxing the rich, percentage wise. You could tax several poor people at a rate of 30% but this probably wouldn't bring in the same income as taxing the mega rich at 1%. Logistically and ethically, taxing the poor would be bad PR, harder to accomplish, and wouldn't provide the same yield. (disclaimer: I'm biased towards returning the tax levels to Clinton-era levels, which is probably about a 3 percentage point hike to 39%).
And why can't people protect themselves from intruders? I'll bet you haven't researched anything about the shooting beyond your hatred of "rich" people. If facts don't fit your hate filled template, you probably just ignore them. I guess you better loot and burn down all the stores in your area, like they did in the LA riots. That will prove that you can ... loot and burn down stores?
People are certainly justified to protect themselves. But, the OP is referencing a story in which an individual went out of his way to stalk a teen boy and shoot him. Race may or may not have been an issue, but the situation certainly seems like it could have been avoidable on the shooter's part. The kid was simply carrying skittles and talking to his girlfriend on the phone. Also, the shooting did not take place on the shooter's property (maybe near it but not on it). All of this suggests that the shooter was not acting on self-defense. Maybe a jumped up sense of paranoia, but not self defense. Though, I'm sure more details will come to light when this goes to trial.
They already exist. They're considered marriage, paintball, and the GOP primaries.
How does ivy bridge compare to ARM? From what I've read, it appears that the ARM has lower wattage, but I'm not sure about the performance.
And at the end of the museum, there's a cafeteria that demonstrates just how delicious these modified organisms are.
You're right. Those are bad examples. I guess the point I was trying to make is that there is a lot of imbalance that exists, which those in power do not pursue with the fervor. Megauploads, does not explicitly distribute copyrighted materials but enables it, putting it on some darkish-gray line with respect to the law. Meanwhile there are other practices which fall in some similar gray area, but little effort is made to correct for them.
I think the problem here is not that he's rich and probably of questionable morals, but that there is an imbalance of justice that is being applied. Here, there is a concerted effort to pursue an individual who is key in distributing probably millions of dollars worth in copyrights. Meanwhile, the justice system couldn't give two shits about prosecuting bankers for predatory loan practiced or curtailing insider trading among congress critters. As such, this event doesn't demonstrate one guy getting nailed for doing something wrong but rather one rich group going after a slightly less-rich individual to protect their profits. This activities of the former even extend to the non-rich individuals. Given this, it's hard to be cheerful when justice is not being applied for justice's-sake but rather for moneyed interests.