Dunno. Sometimes it is difficult to remember a certain thing, but remembering another thing is easy. It might just be that you easily forget to press the attachment button prior to sending, but that you can easily get used to not writing "here's the report", but "find the report attached" or something. Just a thought.
That's not a terrible idea. There have been a number of times that I've sent an email with the body of text saying "here's the report you asked for" and forgot to attach it. which made me feel like an idiot.
Gnome's Evolution optionally warns you if your email contains words like "attachment" (it also seems to apply other heuristics), but no attached file exists. Works surprisingly well.
Your prone to unfounded exaggerations, aren't you. Nobody advertised it as "use this crashproof file system!". Point me to the screenshot if you have proof to the contrary.
Also, this has already been fixed before Ubuntu 9.04, for one, is even out of alpha.
That's that, but let it be said that your other examples are at least equally inane (hint: stability without a GUI is still a valuable property).
Yeah, but you said that "the two most popular desktop distros are horribly fucked by using it". To say they are "using it" when they offer it as an option is stretching the term a bit far, and they are certainly not "fucked".
Sorry if it came across as if I was saying that the family was funding Osama. That was not my intent, though I knew when writing that I was abbreviating this part too much. I was really talking about the early time when he had still some money from being part of the family and "a good guy". That was not his only funding of course, either. Later we know that monies came from different sources, often donations from islamists.
Anyway, I did simply not want to waste all too much time on an AC post that said "Al Qaeda is known to have substantial capital", because that just too wrong to do so.
Interesting, thanks for the link. So it seems that different UN representatives say different things. I retract my clear-cut statement and settle for "I don't know, then".
Reading this I rather got the impression that they were strapped for cash most of the time, and what they had they had got through legal dealings with the US of other Bin Laden family parts.
So would Afghan opium, which the Taliban has extensively invested in.
Blatant misrepresentation. By 2000 the Taliban had banned opium production and by 2001,
U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer.
One wonders how important that was for the US to start the war in Afghanistan, considering that a lack of Afghan opium would be a severe problem for the so-called "War on Drugs" in the US, a war that the government wages against its own citizens.
I said in a private offline conversation (so I unfortunately cannot provide a link) at Christmas 2001 that I expected the Afghan opium production to be back at the world's number 1 within five years, and lo and behold,
Illicit opium production, now dominated by Afghanistan, was decimated in 2000 when production was banned by the Taliban, but has increased steadily since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and over the course of the War in Afghanistan
This book also ignores the fact that Gates success is not based on his programming "genius."
We all know (or should know) the story. From reading the other comments I don't think that the book ignores it. The "review" just didn't make that very clear.
Yeah, can happen. However, I suggest you read some social sciences statistics about which percentage of professionally successful people come from rich background, and which percentage of losers come from poor background. I think you will find that being rich does not exactly set you up for the sad life story that you outlined.
Where I live, people who, for some reason or other, don't go into higher education start an apprenticeship at 16, if they are lucky and don't end up as unskilled workers. Part of that apprenticeship is to attend formal education at a public vocational school for 3 months per year or so. There, they are supposed to practice their craft in a regulated setting and learn the theoretical stuff they need. The school is also partly supposed to ensure that their masters/educators at the company do a reasonable job, which sadly is often not the case.
Friends of mine teach at such a vocational school, and they report that the students are generally in a sad state. Usually they come from less than stellar homes, which makes them prone to being more used to drinking and watching TV than educating themselves. In addition they are often used more as cheap labor than actual apprentices at their jobs, and they are often doing really hard work for their age, which often is mindless, too. As a result, the efforts at school largely go to waste, despite the best efforts of most of the teachers. Any talented kids that grow up in such an environment are IMHO very likely to end up below the level that is possible for them.
I myself always worked during summers from 16 all through my university years, and earlier-on, during my school year and early uni time when I was not skilled enough to get actually interesting jobs in my field of study, I usually worked quite demanding jobs in construction, factories, etc., because they paid reasonably. I doubt that many people are able to educate themselves properly in their free time in addition to doing jobs like these, even if they are highly intelligent and interested. I'm not saying that it is impossible, and we all know that there are examples for that. However, it takes a very special state of mind, a lack of which says little about the other talents of a human being.
There was no luck involved in the things that determined his personality
Not to take anything away from hard work, but coming from a rich family that allowed him to put 10,000 hours into programming instead of, say, shoveling ditches at 16 certainly was not *bad* luck.
Alt+mouse works for me. Maybe that's compiz after all. The shortcut is Alt+F7, I see it in the menu. It's possible that I changed a setting somewhere a long time ago to display shortcuts in menus. Anyway, when you select a window and press it you should be able to move the mouse with the window (unless compiz is being uncooperative again).
Yeah, after posting I found that choosing Move from the window menu indeed does not let you muve it upward beyond the panel. However, the shortcut (that at least on my machine is mentioned in the menu) does let you do it, and so does the Alt click into the window.
It's not because of compiz, I run Ubuntu (Jaunty) w/o visual effects and the behavior is as described (and the OK button is indeed out of the screen in the first place).
Slashdot Mirror
That's because the post was flamebait, making grand claims without a shred of evidence.
Using linux, just use dd to zero out the partition table.
Dunno. Sometimes it is difficult to remember a certain thing, but remembering another thing is easy. It might just be that you easily forget to press the attachment button prior to sending, but that you can easily get used to not writing "here's the report", but "find the report attached" or something. Just a thought.
So if you are prone to forgetting attachments, maybe you should make use of the feature and use different wording in your email.
Email clients have been doing that for many years, not just the abysmal Evo.
Yeah well, the GP's doesn't, so shoot me.
That's not a terrible idea. There have been a number of times that I've sent an email with the body of text saying "here's the report you asked for" and forgot to attach it. which made me feel like an idiot.
Gnome's Evolution optionally warns you if your email contains words like "attachment" (it also seems to apply other heuristics), but no attached file exists. Works surprisingly well.
Fixed in Ubuntu in 8.10 IIRC, and I'd guess a patch also went out to 8.04.
But does anything actually come of these lawsuits?
I guess usually not if you have other patents to defend yourself. If you don't, you are probably fucked.
If you took the paper seriously you could draw the conclusion to become a daoist monk. It's up to you, really.
Gah.
1. You're
2. Second link should have been http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git;a=commitdiff;h=dbc85aa9f11d8c13c15527d43a3def8d7beffdc8
Your prone to unfounded exaggerations, aren't you. Nobody advertised it as "use this crashproof file system!". Point me to the screenshot if you have proof to the contrary.
Also, this has already been fixed before Ubuntu 9.04, for one, is even out of alpha.
That's that, but let it be said that your other examples are at least equally inane (hint: stability without a GUI is still a valuable property).
Yeah, but you said that "the two most popular desktop distros are horribly fucked by using it". To say they are "using it" when they offer it as an option is stretching the term a bit far, and they are certainly not "fucked".
Which popular desktop distros use ext4 by default?
Sorry if it came across as if I was saying that the family was funding Osama. That was not my intent, though I knew when writing that I was abbreviating this part too much. I was really talking about the early time when he had still some money from being part of the family and "a good guy". That was not his only funding of course, either. Later we know that monies came from different sources, often donations from islamists.
Anyway, I did simply not want to waste all too much time on an AC post that said "Al Qaeda is known to have substantial capital", because that just too wrong to do so.
Interesting, thanks for the link. So it seems that different UN representatives say different things. I retract my clear-cut statement and settle for "I don't know, then".
Al Qaeda is known to have substantial capital
Reading this I rather got the impression that they were strapped for cash most of the time, and what they had they had got through legal dealings with the US of other Bin Laden family parts.
So would Afghan opium, which the Taliban has extensively invested in.
Blatant misrepresentation. By 2000 the Taliban had banned opium production and by 2001,
. -- http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html
One wonders how important that was for the US to start the war in Afghanistan, considering that a lack of Afghan opium would be a severe problem for the so-called "War on Drugs" in the US, a war that the government wages against its own citizens.
I said in a private offline conversation (so I unfortunately cannot provide a link) at Christmas 2001 that I expected the Afghan opium production to be back at the world's number 1 within five years, and lo and behold,
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium (follow the references)
-- http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/2005_Afghan_opium_harvest_begins
This book also ignores the fact that Gates success is not based on his programming "genius."
We all know (or should know) the story. From reading the other comments I don't think that the book ignores it. The "review" just didn't make that very clear.
Yeah, can happen. However, I suggest you read some social sciences statistics about which percentage of professionally successful people come from rich background, and which percentage of losers come from poor background. I think you will find that being rich does not exactly set you up for the sad life story that you outlined.
Where I live, people who, for some reason or other, don't go into higher education start an apprenticeship at 16, if they are lucky and don't end up as unskilled workers. Part of that apprenticeship is to attend formal education at a public vocational school for 3 months per year or so. There, they are supposed to practice their craft in a regulated setting and learn the theoretical stuff they need. The school is also partly supposed to ensure that their masters/educators at the company do a reasonable job, which sadly is often not the case.
Friends of mine teach at such a vocational school, and they report that the students are generally in a sad state. Usually they come from less than stellar homes, which makes them prone to being more used to drinking and watching TV than educating themselves. In addition they are often used more as cheap labor than actual apprentices at their jobs, and they are often doing really hard work for their age, which often is mindless, too. As a result, the efforts at school largely go to waste, despite the best efforts of most of the teachers.
Any talented kids that grow up in such an environment are IMHO very likely to end up below the level that is possible for them.
I myself always worked during summers from 16 all through my university years, and earlier-on, during my school year and early uni time when I was not skilled enough to get actually interesting jobs in my field of study, I usually worked quite demanding jobs in construction, factories, etc., because they paid reasonably.
I doubt that many people are able to educate themselves properly in their free time in addition to doing jobs like these, even if they are highly intelligent and interested. I'm not saying that it is impossible, and we all know that there are examples for that. However, it takes a very special state of mind, a lack of which says little about the other talents of a human being.
And had you happened to have cancer or a car accident at the wrong time it would all have been for nothing.
There was no luck involved in the things that determined his personality
Not to take anything away from hard work, but coming from a rich family that allowed him to put 10,000 hours into programming instead of, say, shoveling ditches at 16 certainly was not *bad* luck.
Depends on how far down you grab the window, that's as far as it will go. You can repeat though
Alt+mouse works for me. Maybe that's compiz after all. The shortcut is Alt+F7, I see it in the menu. It's possible that I changed a setting somewhere a long time ago to display shortcuts in menus. Anyway, when you select a window and press it you should be able to move the mouse with the window (unless compiz is being uncooperative again).
Yeah, after posting I found that choosing Move from the window menu indeed does not let you muve it upward beyond the panel. However, the shortcut (that at least on my machine is mentioned in the menu) does let you do it, and so does the Alt click into the window.
It's not because of compiz, I run Ubuntu (Jaunty) w/o visual effects and the behavior is as described (and the OK button is indeed out of the screen in the first place).
Right click the window bar and select "Move" Alt + clicking into windows & holding left mouse button lets you do the same.