KDE has a lot of nice things, but some of us just want a taskbar, a start menu and a system tray. The fancy new desktop things in KDE don't interest me all since I don't even have a desktop turned on. Same with the fancy new graphics (I like Clearlooks) and programs (I used to like Amarok, but Banshee suddenly became more attractive with KDE 4). I think it really just comes down to what you want from from your DE.
Also, GNOME 3 doesn't look bad. Of course I'm a little worried that it'll suck (there are definitely historical reasons for not trusting the GNOME devs' ideas of what's usable), but from what I've seen it could actually be pretty cool. It looks like they took a lot of ideas from Gnome-Do (a Launchy-like program), and the "minimizing distractions" idea could definitely help me out. It's impossible to say until it actually comes out though.
Well, since the ESRB isn't a government organization, they could just remove the rating of "T" (or redefine it to be the highest rating) and make a new one to replace it..
If the law is "anyone who does even one bad thing is tortured forever", then torturing an innocent person isn't justice, and it doesn't absolve the person who actually did a bad thing. If God decided that that law was too harsh (understandable), it would make much more sense to admit he was wrong and change it than to apply the rule to himself (except of course, he was only dead for 3 days and he was still God for the entire time, so it's really more of a gesture).
If a parent you set a rule in the house and discipline your children for not obeying it, but change it when it no longer suites you it undermines your authority as a parent. Yes, you have the power to change the rule; but should you just because it no longer suites you?
Sticking with a rule after it's no longer useful or found to be flawed just undermines your authority as a parent. Children will realize if their parents are making rules for the sake of rules, or if they're making rules because they make sense. It's often easier to say "Because I said so", but they won't learn anything that way, and it makes them less likely to be followed if someone else says it's ok. Of course, you can make your kids follow your rules of fear (apparently God's method), but isn't respect better?
Has nothing to do with convincing himself to forgive us - it has everything to do with fulfilling the requirements of the laws that were laid down (http://tinyurl.com/5vamtm9). So He subjected Himself to the same laws as He subjected His creation.
I'm not even remotely all-powerful, but I can still change rules I make without killing myself.
Death is meaningless if it's temporary and completely under your control. I'm sure you could find plenty of people willing to "die" for 3 days to save someone else. Speaking of which, why exactly did God have to kill himself in order to convince himself to forgive us for being exactly what he made us to be? Not that sacrificial death has anything to do with justice in the first place..
Me personally? No if I could help I would. But then think of the fall-out. If something happened to me as a result of my involvement would it not then have the same affect on my wife, children, parents, siblings?
But then you have to get back to the societal repercussions, of which we will always be far too small minded to comprehend. A change in one way (e.g. gun control) has adverse affects in another (e.g. self defense).
Where's the right balance? God knows; He even provided such a balance for us until we rejected it, deciding we knew better.
So you think God might be concerned about getting hurt? Or he might not be able to do it without causing even worse problems?
What I'm trying to get at is that God isn't supposed to be one of us, he's supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing. If you were all-powerful would you worry about something happening to you if you tried to help someone? If you were all-knowing, don't you think you could do it without causing more problems?
To put it into context - must a parent always intervene in their child's life? Or must the parent allow the child to fail or get hurt at times so that they grow, mature, learn the most? It's the same with God, only he's the parent and we're all children.
So if your child was being tortured to death, you'd just stay out of it because it's a learning experience?
Ok I'll come clean I havent RTFA, but it strikes me weird that a 15 year old is going to grasp all sides commercial and technological nuances of a very complex issue.
Anyone else feel the same way?
Oh geez, not a 15 year old. Anyone under $your_age is too young to be taken seriously. This should be removed immediately, so that discussion can continue the proper way: Ignoring a group of people for no reason.
Vi isn't the easiest of tools (I don't use it because I prefer more straightforward editors), but it's not really that complicated. It's just different.
Furthermore, there is nothing sustainable about "veganic permaculture". You're growing stuff, and eating it. You're taking nutrients from the soil, and not replacing them - unless you only ever pee and shit on your vegetable patch. The only really successful way to fertilise your arable crops without resorting to petrochemical-derived fertilisers is to feed lots of forage to herbivores - ideall ruminants, and then plough the resulting manure into the ground once you've burnt off the straw and let it rot down a bit. Cows are walking compost generators that also happen to taste nice.
I see. So removing plants from a field removes all of the nutrients and isn't sustainable, but removing animals from that same field takes nothing away? Remember, animals eat plants. All of that tasty meat is made out of tasty plants. All you're doing is putting a step in-between so you can pretend that there are no plants involved.
You should also keep in mind that the vast majority of animals on the planet are fed with soy and corn. I agree with you that there are cases where animals can be raised in environments that aren't useful for growing crops (and also cases where food we don't want can be fed to animals), but you're seriously overestimating how much meat that would produce.
So we won't have to the resources to grow enough vegetables to eat, but we will have the resources to grow enough vegetables to feed livestock which we then eat?
Clearly the fact that Google and Facebook are built largely on open source software is meaningless. Who's ever heard of those? No, it's when foreign governments start using open source software that people will pay attention;)
I don't really see a serious problem. HTML5's issues seem to be primarily that it's new, and that'll go away as it becomes more common (like when IE9 comes out). The lack of a agreement on things in browsers is an issue, but Flash already deals with completely different operating systems. Eventually, there will be popular SDL-like libraries to abstract all of that away in JavaScript too.
And don't take my comment to mean I think Flash should die now, I just don't see a big difference between the two besides one is already established and the other is just getting started.
So.. which browsers did you support before, just Chrome? Opera and Firefox don't do h.264 and IE 7 and 8 don't do <video> at all. If you're using Flash to serve up videos, then this change makes no difference to you at all. If your site only worked in Chrome, then you have more serious issues than this change.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but if you turn them off, it's just like using GNOME ;)
Whoosh?
The only real competition KDE has today is XFCE.
KDE has a lot of nice things, but some of us just want a taskbar, a start menu and a system tray. The fancy new desktop things in KDE don't interest me all since I don't even have a desktop turned on. Same with the fancy new graphics (I like Clearlooks) and programs (I used to like Amarok, but Banshee suddenly became more attractive with KDE 4). I think it really just comes down to what you want from from your DE.
Also, GNOME 3 doesn't look bad. Of course I'm a little worried that it'll suck (there are definitely historical reasons for not trusting the GNOME devs' ideas of what's usable), but from what I've seen it could actually be pretty cool. It looks like they took a lot of ideas from Gnome-Do (a Launchy-like program), and the "minimizing distractions" idea could definitely help me out. It's impossible to say until it actually comes out though.
Well, since the ESRB isn't a government organization, they could just remove the rating of "T" (or redefine it to be the highest rating) and make a new one to replace it..
Which is complete bullshit. How can you call it freedom of the press if the government gets to decide what the press is?
Yeah on a widescreen monitor it looks really weird. Everything is on the left. Besides that it's nice though.
If the law is "anyone who does even one bad thing is tortured forever", then torturing an innocent person isn't justice, and it doesn't absolve the person who actually did a bad thing. If God decided that that law was too harsh (understandable), it would make much more sense to admit he was wrong and change it than to apply the rule to himself (except of course, he was only dead for 3 days and he was still God for the entire time, so it's really more of a gesture).
If a parent you set a rule in the house and discipline your children for not obeying it, but change it when it no longer suites you it undermines your authority as a parent. Yes, you have the power to change the rule; but should you just because it no longer suites you?
Sticking with a rule after it's no longer useful or found to be flawed just undermines your authority as a parent. Children will realize if their parents are making rules for the sake of rules, or if they're making rules because they make sense. It's often easier to say "Because I said so", but they won't learn anything that way, and it makes them less likely to be followed if someone else says it's ok. Of course, you can make your kids follow your rules of fear (apparently God's method), but isn't respect better?
Has nothing to do with convincing himself to forgive us - it has everything to do with fulfilling the requirements of the laws that were laid down (http://tinyurl.com/5vamtm9). So He subjected Himself to the same laws as He subjected His creation.
I'm not even remotely all-powerful, but I can still change rules I make without killing myself.
I never said God is afraid of getting hurt - otherwise he wouldn't have let himself get hurt.
Death is meaningless if it's temporary and completely under your control. I'm sure you could find plenty of people willing to "die" for 3 days to save someone else. Speaking of which, why exactly did God have to kill himself in order to convince himself to forgive us for being exactly what he made us to be? Not that sacrificial death has anything to do with justice in the first place..
Me personally? No if I could help I would. But then think of the fall-out. If something happened to me as a result of my involvement would it not then have the same affect on my wife, children, parents, siblings?
But then you have to get back to the societal repercussions, of which we will always be far too small minded to comprehend. A change in one way (e.g. gun control) has adverse affects in another (e.g. self defense).
Where's the right balance? God knows; He even provided such a balance for us until we rejected it, deciding we knew better.
So you think God might be concerned about getting hurt? Or he might not be able to do it without causing even worse problems?
What I'm trying to get at is that God isn't supposed to be one of us, he's supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing. If you were all-powerful would you worry about something happening to you if you tried to help someone? If you were all-knowing, don't you think you could do it without causing more problems?
To put it into context - must a parent always intervene in their child's life? Or must the parent allow the child to fail or get hurt at times so that they grow, mature, learn the most? It's the same with God, only he's the parent and we're all children.
So if your child was being tortured to death, you'd just stay out of it because it's a learning experience?
Ok I'll come clean I havent RTFA, but it strikes me weird that a 15 year old is going to grasp all sides commercial and technological nuances of a very complex issue.
Anyone else feel the same way?
Oh geez, not a 15 year old. Anyone under $your_age is too young to be taken seriously. This should be removed immediately, so that discussion can continue the proper way: Ignoring a group of people for no reason.
They probably use signed ints to support the people who want negative two billion columns.
You might find it interesting that Gnome feels the same way on Arch. Pretty much everything feels lighter when you're not using Ubuntu ;)
You seem to be missing the point entirely..
Vi isn't the easiest of tools (I don't use it because I prefer more straightforward editors), but it's not really that complicated. It's just different.
Furthermore, there is nothing sustainable about "veganic permaculture". You're growing stuff, and eating it. You're taking nutrients from the soil, and not replacing them - unless you only ever pee and shit on your vegetable patch. The only really successful way to fertilise your arable crops without resorting to petrochemical-derived fertilisers is to feed lots of forage to herbivores - ideall ruminants, and then plough the resulting manure into the ground once you've burnt off the straw and let it rot down a bit. Cows are walking compost generators that also happen to taste nice.
I see. So removing plants from a field removes all of the nutrients and isn't sustainable, but removing animals from that same field takes nothing away? Remember, animals eat plants. All of that tasty meat is made out of tasty plants. All you're doing is putting a step in-between so you can pretend that there are no plants involved.
You should also keep in mind that the vast majority of animals on the planet are fed with soy and corn. I agree with you that there are cases where animals can be raised in environments that aren't useful for growing crops (and also cases where food we don't want can be fed to animals), but you're seriously overestimating how much meat that would produce.
So we won't have to the resources to grow enough vegetables to eat, but we will have the resources to grow enough vegetables to feed livestock which we then eat?
I run a 32-bit kernel with PAE, and like the fact that limits Firefox runaway to only 4GB RAM. :)
How do you get it to do that -- a million tabs? The most memory I've ever seen my computer use without playing an MMO is ~700 MB (64 bit Arch).
Clearly the fact that Google and Facebook are built largely on open source software is meaningless. Who's ever heard of those? No, it's when foreign governments start using open source software that people will pay attention ;)
I don't really see a serious problem. HTML5's issues seem to be primarily that it's new, and that'll go away as it becomes more common (like when IE9 comes out). The lack of a agreement on things in browsers is an issue, but Flash already deals with completely different operating systems. Eventually, there will be popular SDL-like libraries to abstract all of that away in JavaScript too.
And don't take my comment to mean I think Flash should die now, I just don't see a big difference between the two besides one is already established and the other is just getting started.
Didn't you hear? Everyone has the unalienable right to a government-paid cell phone now.
So.. which browsers did you support before, just Chrome? Opera and Firefox don't do h.264 and IE 7 and 8 don't do <video> at all. If you're using Flash to serve up videos, then this change makes no difference to you at all. If your site only worked in Chrome, then you have more serious issues than this change.
JavaScript? Aren't they pretty much the same anyway?
Sounds like they could fix that by adding a 'zip' function ;)