Yes, I know they're here and I know they don't preach. That wasn't in debate.
My point was that the atheist bloc (proportionately larger on \. it seems than in the general public) engages in a good bit of Christian-bashing here. I'd prefer positive "preaching" of atheism to negative bashing of those who disagree with you. Unfortunately, the only unifying idea behind atheism seems to be "religion is dumb" rather than "not believing in Deity has made [my life|society] better".
Slashdot is (mostly) a community about tech, and it's not the proper forum for metaphysical philosophy. I don't mention my faith here except very obliquely in discussions of societal topics where it influences my beliefs, or when misinformation is being posted about it.
I have continued to install Mozilla with just a few modifications. I have renamed the shortcut on the desktop to "Netscape," changed the icon, and disabled the startup splash-screen.
My boss didn't notice the difference.
LOL! That's hilarious. If you happen to know of a good IE skin/theme so I can do the same sort of thing around here, let me know.
The obvious clue that HFS+ isn't going away is that Apple is finally pushing full HFS+ support back up to the command line utils like cp to support resource forks and whatnot in 10.4, so hopefully we can stop needing OS X specific tools like ditto.
Why stuff like this wasn't included in 10.0 is beyond me. Even if OS X wasn't designed to be a CLI-driven system, there has to be at least one Unix geek at Apple that would have thought this important enough to implement earlier. Anyone happen to know if the new HFS+-aware versions will be available separate from upgrading to 10.4?
Corporate execs are more comfortable with a known brand name. Even though Mozilla (and FF, Camino, K-Meleon, etc) are based on the same code, they are not "Netscape". When execs are made aware of the faults and deficiencies of IE, they may think "I wish it was still like the old days, when we could at least choose between IE and Netscape." Lo and behold, here's Netscape 7.2. If you mention Opera or Firefox to them, you'd get blank stares.
Also, some of these execs want an all-in-one solution, not a perceived patchwork of FF+TB+whatever to meet basic internet needs.
Plus, "Mozilla" sounds like something only a geek could love. "Netscape" sounds like a polished product, like the marketing team actually spent more than 5 seconds to think of it. That's important to execs.
Are you compressing your PNGs with pngout or pngcrush? (pngout usually works much better)
This thread was the first I'd heard of these tools. I crushed the 3 main images on my site: background, logo, and favicon and got 36%, 8%, and 5% savings, respectively, with no discernible loss of quality. Great! If only pngout were OSS so I could get it on my platform. I have neither Windows nor Linux/x86 available.
Does the Gimp have an option to set the palette size for PNG? And why hasn't someone there incorporated the same scheme pngcrush uses to minimize file sizes?
Since you are still on 2.4 now, it sounds like you already distrust the even numbered kernels.
Nah, I just don't feel the need to keep up with the "latest and greatest" all the time. I ran YDL 2.1 well past when 2.3 was available, and finally upgraded just before 3.0 came out - 2.1 was good enough for what I was doing and I didn't see a reason to upgrade. Likewise, I stayed with MacOS 8.1 until X was available, because I saw no compelling reason to upgrade before that.
I was going to upgrade to a 2.6 kernel this weekend, but maybe I should stick with 2.4 the way the comments here are sounding. I generally don't concern myself with kernel-level details, but I don't care for Linus' decision here. The even-odd scheme gave me a level of confidence in any even-numbered Linux kernel that feels like it's just been yanked away.
Or maybe I should ditch Linux altogether in favor of NetBSD. I'm already running NetBSD on a couple of my boxen.
Funny you should mention that. I just noticed it on my old LUG's web site today. (Look out for the Praetorians.) I never knew why (and nobody would tell me) why the favicon is a goat, either.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Judge Moore's (yes, I know his name) argument was that the Alabama (yes, I know the state) constitution required an acknowledgement of God in his duties as Chief Justice. If this weren't the case, the entire suit was frivolous. Many Christians understand that this country was founded largely by people with orthodox Christian views, on legal traditions that find their roots in the Bible.
You may disagree with Judge Moore's interpretation of the Alabama law, and you may dispute this reading of history - fine. But please recognize the difference between this and your suggestion of a stone sculpture of the Koran. Yes, Christians would object to that - it's not a case of all religions get a "fair shake" from gov't, it's a case of gov't recognizing its own heritage for what it is. American Muslims should be thankful they can even exist as such - there is no such thing as a Saudi Christian, because non-Islam religions are illegal there. Freedom of religion (it's something to be freely chosen in your own heart, not imposed by others) does have its basis in Christian beliefs, contrary to what you say. That said, Roger Williams got the shaft from a group of Christians that weren't acting much like Christ. But that's a black mark against those individuals, not against Christianity.
How do they "force" you back to IE? Theoretically, our corporate policy doesn't allow us to install software; the IT center is supposed to do it. But in reality, we're developers; we have to install stuff all the time.
She is basically saying that our relationship isn't more important than my [browsing habits, nose picking, whatever]. If she thinks so little of our relationship that she is willing to compare it to [browsing habits, nose picking, whatever] then the relationship is going downhill fast anyway.
I think you're looking at that backwards. If your relationship is more important than any of those other things, be prepared to give up those things for the good of the relationship if necessary. You might be offended by the comparison because it presumes she is equivalent to X, but she will be offended if you don't give it up because it proves (to her) that she loses the comparison.
OTOH, if your gf is asking you to give up things that are important to you, you have to ask yourself if the sacrifices really are necessary and if you really want to stay with that person.
Do you have a pointer to a good IE theme for Moz/FF? The only ones I know of haven't been updated for a year and won't work with the newest versions. About 8 months ago I wanted to try a stealth "switch" on a coworker's PC (changing the icon to IE, etc) as an experiment, but couldn't find an up-to-date IE theme!
Simply "being available" is a limitation, a curtailment, of my life - even if I never actually get called in. I'm sure as heck not going to do that without compensation, and doubly sure not to do it if I have to pay for it. I may agree to be available in order to get the job, but I expect reasonable compensation for the fact and the means of being available.
I agree...to an extent. When you're salaried, more is expected - but how much more is still open for debate. In this case, work would have my home number. That's a reasonable effort on my part to be available. Just because all these technologies (wireless, pagers, broadband, cell phones) exist doesn't make it my responsibility to enslave myself to my employer 24x7.
Where are the options for saving PNGs in GIMP 2? Is it possible to save with a smaller color palette or no alpha? All I see that looks like it might affect quality/size are an interlacing checkbox and a compression slider. I'm used to other programs that put these options in the save dialog. Maybe they are elsewhere in GIMP?
Any other tips for optimizing web images in GIMP greatly appreciated. I'm mostly thumbs with graphics.
Agreed. I'm on "the right" as you describe it - meaning largely pro-rights small-government libertarian in philosophy.
I actually spoke with an ES&S employee over the weekend, and when I tried to ask him a "tough" question about vote verification all he could say was "there have always been problems and fraud counting ballots". That's not very reassuring - we're going to spend big money and possibly not get any better than the system we have now?
All your railing against "the rich" sounds exactly like someone taken in by the class warfare inciters on the left.
The State's activities beyond maintaining law and order should be eliminated. The purpose of gov't is to safeguard our rights, it is not to provide this or that need to this or that group. In a free country you have the opportunity to provide for yourself - use it. If your country isn't free, that's what you need to work toward, not wealth redistribution.
You are correct, to an extent, that "right wing" people do not like democracy. The Founders of the USA did not like democracy either. Too much like mob rule - the tyranny of the majority. That's why the US was designed as a republic. Article 4 Section 4 of our Constitution says the US shall guarantee each state a republican form of government, as well.
The wealthy have more to lose in a democracy. By definition, the rich people are going to have the money. In a democracy, the 51% of the people on the "poor" end of the money spectrum could vote to give themselves the rich people's money - that's essentially what happens when you tax the rich more for gov't services that are used disproportionately by the poor. Singling out people (or groups) for different treatment is not equal protection under the law, and is unjust. OTOH, everybody has just as much to gain in a republic, where rights and freedoms are protected by law. You have the opportunity to do whatever you want with your life, to work hard and to make as much of it as you want. Poor immigrants came to America in the 19th century because it was the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Hand-outs.
If your concern is justice for all instead of misguided compassion for a few (and envy) then you'd understand that a flat tax is much more sensible and fair. The 10% from "the rich" is obviously much more than the 10% from "the poor" but they're paying the same so who can complain*? You wouldn't tax an arbitrary group like "blacks" more, so why would you levy a higher tax on "the rich"?
Better yet would be a consumption (sales) tax to replace income tax, because you are in direct control of how much tax you pay. You can buy cheaper alternatives, or forego a purchase altogether and invest the money instead. You are taxed only on what you can afford to buy, and you're the one who decides what that is. Since government's job is to safeguard our rights, and life is the paramount right, it is not just for the State to tax the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, medicine. With these items removed from taxation, the poor will pay very little in taxes, but this result is arrived at through justice, not arbitrary class-defining legislation.
No wealthy person I know believes they shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes. But they do believe they shouldn't pay more than their share. Government-mandated "compassion" to the poor provides a disincentive to work, and since a majority of wealthy people got that way through their own efforts, they are understandably annoyed by others leeching off their efforts while contributing little. Gov't regulations distinguish poorly between the genuinely needy and those who choose to abuse the system. Charity is not a job gov't is suited for. Not many people like receiving charity from someone they know, and will work to get out of that situation - but these same people will gladly receive an entitlement from a faceless gov't entity. Through welfare programs, gov't perpetuates the welfare class that relies on it - and can thus be counted on to vote for more and more gov't. It's an insidious means to erode liberty.
* Actually there is still much to be complained about with a flat-rate income tax. If we (presumably) enjoy the same freedoms whether we are rich or poor, why do the rich have to pay more for the gov't that secures those rights? If every individual has equal worth before the Creator that endowed th
It always bothered me in Star Trek when Spock would be reading off sensors of some object and say "5 million metric tons".
Agreed. They could have driven home the futuristic (familiar yet a little different) by using metic exclusively on Star Trek for "on duty" work, but having Kirk or Bones know his height in feet and inches, just like they knew the old calendar system as well as stardates.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know they're here and I know they don't preach. That wasn't in debate.
My point was that the atheist bloc (proportionately larger on \. it seems than in the general public) engages in a good bit of Christian-bashing here. I'd prefer positive "preaching" of atheism to negative bashing of those who disagree with you. Unfortunately, the only unifying idea behind atheism seems to be "religion is dumb" rather than "not believing in Deity has made [my life|society] better".
Slashdot is (mostly) a community about tech, and it's not the proper forum for metaphysical philosophy. I don't mention my faith here except very obliquely in discussions of societal topics where it influences my beliefs, or when misinformation is being posted about it.
Ironic, also, is the acceptance of Tolkien among the atheist/agnostic crowd here on slashdot that bashes the beliefs of Lewis.
LOL! That's hilarious. If you happen to know of a good IE skin/theme so I can do the same sort of thing around here, let me know.
Why stuff like this wasn't included in 10.0 is beyond me. Even if OS X wasn't designed to be a CLI-driven system, there has to be at least one Unix geek at Apple that would have thought this important enough to implement earlier. Anyone happen to know if the new HFS+-aware versions will be available separate from upgrading to 10.4?
Corporate execs are more comfortable with a known brand name. Even though Mozilla (and FF, Camino, K-Meleon, etc) are based on the same code, they are not "Netscape". When execs are made aware of the faults and deficiencies of IE, they may think "I wish it was still like the old days, when we could at least choose between IE and Netscape." Lo and behold, here's Netscape 7.2. If you mention Opera or Firefox to them, you'd get blank stares.
Also, some of these execs want an all-in-one solution, not a perceived patchwork of FF+TB+whatever to meet basic internet needs.
Plus, "Mozilla" sounds like something only a geek could love. "Netscape" sounds like a polished product, like the marketing team actually spent more than 5 seconds to think of it. That's important to execs.
This thread was the first I'd heard of these tools. I crushed the 3 main images on my site: background, logo, and favicon and got 36%, 8%, and 5% savings, respectively, with no discernible loss of quality. Great! If only pngout were OSS so I could get it on my platform. I have neither Windows nor Linux/x86 available.
Why oh why isn't Gimp's PNG saving routines optimized like this???
Does the Gimp have an option to set the palette size for PNG? And why hasn't someone there incorporated the same scheme pngcrush uses to minimize file sizes?
I switched to PNG whenever possible. Technically superior in most respects, anyway. No excuse except lethargy to hold me back.
Nah, I just don't feel the need to keep up with the "latest and greatest" all the time. I ran YDL 2.1 well past when 2.3 was available, and finally upgraded just before 3.0 came out - 2.1 was good enough for what I was doing and I didn't see a reason to upgrade. Likewise, I stayed with MacOS 8.1 until X was available, because I saw no compelling reason to upgrade before that.
I was going to upgrade to a 2.6 kernel this weekend, but maybe I should stick with 2.4 the way the comments here are sounding. I generally don't concern myself with kernel-level details, but I don't care for Linus' decision here. The even-odd scheme gave me a level of confidence in any even-numbered Linux kernel that feels like it's just been yanked away.
Or maybe I should ditch Linux altogether in favor of NetBSD. I'm already running NetBSD on a couple of my boxen.
Funny you should mention that. I just noticed it on my old LUG's web site today. (Look out for the Praetorians.) I never knew why (and nobody would tell me) why the favicon is a goat, either.
Judge Moore's (yes, I know his name) argument was that the Alabama (yes, I know the state) constitution required an acknowledgement of God in his duties as Chief Justice. If this weren't the case, the entire suit was frivolous. Many Christians understand that this country was founded largely by people with orthodox Christian views, on legal traditions that find their roots in the Bible.
You may disagree with Judge Moore's interpretation of the Alabama law, and you may dispute this reading of history - fine. But please recognize the difference between this and your suggestion of a stone sculpture of the Koran. Yes, Christians would object to that - it's not a case of all religions get a "fair shake" from gov't, it's a case of gov't recognizing its own heritage for what it is. American Muslims should be thankful they can even exist as such - there is no such thing as a Saudi Christian, because non-Islam religions are illegal there. Freedom of religion (it's something to be freely chosen in your own heart, not imposed by others) does have its basis in Christian beliefs, contrary to what you say. That said, Roger Williams got the shaft from a group of Christians that weren't acting much like Christ. But that's a black mark against those individuals, not against Christianity.
Know of an up-to-date IE theme for Moz/FF to complete the switcheroo? Too many long-time IE users will notice the difference otherwise.
How do they "force" you back to IE? Theoretically, our corporate policy doesn't allow us to install software; the IT center is supposed to do it. But in reality, we're developers; we have to install stuff all the time.
I think you're looking at that backwards. If your relationship is more important than any of those other things, be prepared to give up those things for the good of the relationship if necessary. You might be offended by the comparison because it presumes she is equivalent to X, but she will be offended if you don't give it up because it proves (to her) that she loses the comparison.
OTOH, if your gf is asking you to give up things that are important to you, you have to ask yourself if the sacrifices really are necessary and if you really want to stay with that person.
Do you have a pointer to a good IE theme for Moz/FF? The only ones I know of haven't been updated for a year and won't work with the newest versions. About 8 months ago I wanted to try a stealth "switch" on a coworker's PC (changing the icon to IE, etc) as an experiment, but couldn't find an up-to-date IE theme!
Simply "being available" is a limitation, a curtailment, of my life - even if I never actually get called in. I'm sure as heck not going to do that without compensation, and doubly sure not to do it if I have to pay for it. I may agree to be available in order to get the job, but I expect reasonable compensation for the fact and the means of being available.
Just downloaded this. Thanks! Web Developer rocks!
I agree...to an extent. When you're salaried, more is expected - but how much more is still open for debate. In this case, work would have my home number. That's a reasonable effort on my part to be available. Just because all these technologies (wireless, pagers, broadband, cell phones) exist doesn't make it my responsibility to enslave myself to my employer 24x7.
Where are the options for saving PNGs in GIMP 2? Is it possible to save with a smaller color palette or no alpha? All I see that looks like it might affect quality/size are an interlacing checkbox and a compression slider. I'm used to other programs that put these options in the save dialog. Maybe they are elsewhere in GIMP?
Any other tips for optimizing web images in GIMP greatly appreciated. I'm mostly thumbs with graphics.
Agreed. I'm on "the right" as you describe it - meaning largely pro-rights small-government libertarian in philosophy.
I actually spoke with an ES&S employee over the weekend, and when I tried to ask him a "tough" question about vote verification all he could say was "there have always been problems and fraud counting ballots". That's not very reassuring - we're going to spend big money and possibly not get any better than the system we have now?
(Speaking as an American.)
All your railing against "the rich" sounds exactly like someone taken in by the class warfare inciters on the left.
The State's activities beyond maintaining law and order should be eliminated. The purpose of gov't is to safeguard our rights, it is not to provide this or that need to this or that group. In a free country you have the opportunity to provide for yourself - use it. If your country isn't free, that's what you need to work toward, not wealth redistribution.
You are correct, to an extent, that "right wing" people do not like democracy. The Founders of the USA did not like democracy either. Too much like mob rule - the tyranny of the majority. That's why the US was designed as a republic. Article 4 Section 4 of our Constitution says the US shall guarantee each state a republican form of government, as well.
The wealthy have more to lose in a democracy. By definition, the rich people are going to have the money. In a democracy, the 51% of the people on the "poor" end of the money spectrum could vote to give themselves the rich people's money - that's essentially what happens when you tax the rich more for gov't services that are used disproportionately by the poor. Singling out people (or groups) for different treatment is not equal protection under the law, and is unjust. OTOH, everybody has just as much to gain in a republic, where rights and freedoms are protected by law. You have the opportunity to do whatever you want with your life, to work hard and to make as much of it as you want. Poor immigrants came to America in the 19th century because it was the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Hand-outs.
If your concern is justice for all instead of misguided compassion for a few (and envy) then you'd understand that a flat tax is much more sensible and fair. The 10% from "the rich" is obviously much more than the 10% from "the poor" but they're paying the same so who can complain*? You wouldn't tax an arbitrary group like "blacks" more, so why would you levy a higher tax on "the rich"?
Better yet would be a consumption (sales) tax to replace income tax, because you are in direct control of how much tax you pay. You can buy cheaper alternatives, or forego a purchase altogether and invest the money instead. You are taxed only on what you can afford to buy, and you're the one who decides what that is. Since government's job is to safeguard our rights, and life is the paramount right, it is not just for the State to tax the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, medicine. With these items removed from taxation, the poor will pay very little in taxes, but this result is arrived at through justice, not arbitrary class-defining legislation.
No wealthy person I know believes they shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes. But they do believe they shouldn't pay more than their share. Government-mandated "compassion" to the poor provides a disincentive to work, and since a majority of wealthy people got that way through their own efforts, they are understandably annoyed by others leeching off their efforts while contributing little. Gov't regulations distinguish poorly between the genuinely needy and those who choose to abuse the system. Charity is not a job gov't is suited for. Not many people like receiving charity from someone they know, and will work to get out of that situation - but these same people will gladly receive an entitlement from a faceless gov't entity. Through welfare programs, gov't perpetuates the welfare class that relies on it - and can thus be counted on to vote for more and more gov't. It's an insidious means to erode liberty.
* Actually there is still much to be complained about with a flat-rate income tax. If we (presumably) enjoy the same freedoms whether we are rich or poor, why do the rich have to pay more for the gov't that secures those rights? If every individual has equal worth before the Creator that endowed th
Vote Constitution or Libertarian. Granted, not an overnight solution. In the meantime, exercise your 2nd Amemendment rights, get a CCW.
How do you know they weren't speaking Chinese on Star Trek? (Universal Translators.) *grin*
Agreed. They could have driven home the futuristic (familiar yet a little different) by using metic exclusively on Star Trek for "on duty" work, but having Kirk or Bones know his height in feet and inches, just like they knew the old calendar system as well as stardates.