Re:do not stop progress by not wanting 'bloat'...
on
KDE 4.0 RC 1 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Well, there's two kinds of "bloated" and people often don't differentiate between the two. There's bloated in the sense of being written poorly and wasting a lot of resources for no reason, and then there's bloated in the sense of having a whole bunch of features that various people may or may not want (which usually determines if they consider it bloated or not). The first kind of bloated of course is clearly a valid criticism that needs to be addressed, the second kind however is mostly a matter of taste. Myself, I like a bit of eye candy, but at the same time I don't like to waste a lot of space, so I tend to lean towards either Enlightenment, or Blackbox for my WM. Both can be configured to be relatively minimalist in terms of screen real estate used by the various pieces of the WM, but in the case of enlightenment it tends to use some resources because of all the eye candy options. Does that make it bloated? Maybe, but that really depends on if you like eye candy or not.
Dude, that link just got slashdotted hard. Are you sure it's not just you? It still works fine for me. Well, I tried it again and it's working now. When I tried it earlyer I got a warning page saying the sight had exceeded its alloted CPU cycles. I'm guessing maybe an admin took a look at where the traffic was coming from and was kind enough to up this guys resource cap.
I usually use GNOME because I don't like the menus in KDE, but that's really neither here nor there as given a choice I won't use either. For me Enlightenment is the best. It's got the flexible menus of GNOME, with the eye candy of KDE. Only problem with enlightenment is it's not exactly the most stable WM ever made. The development is also spotty with long patches going between usable releases.
That said, I really like his work and can't think of any other ST actor I'd more like to hang out with.
I don't know about that, Patrick Stewart really is an amazing actor. Of course Wil does have that whole geek thing going for him, so maybe he'd be more entertaining long run, but it would still be pretty cool to have a chance to chat with Patrick Stewart.
I find it kind of sad to think of Wil reading through the comments on here. I'm sure as a regular to slashdot he's probably used to the trolling that goes on, but it's still got to be hard on him at some level to read some of this stuff. I for one hadn't heard about this book before now, but I think I'll go pickup a copy. It's always interesting to see a fellow geeks perspective on life, and Wil usually does a pretty good job of expressing that perspective.
The flaw with your assumption is that the body will always full utilize all Calories that are consumed when it has been shown on many occasions that certain forms of Calories cannot be processed by the body. For a good example of this see Olestra, which while good in theory, wasn't so much in practice. People were told it was the miracle fat that you could eat as much of as you wanted and it wouldn't make you fat, which is technically true, but overlooks what happens to all that fat you eat. With the body unable to process the fats, they simply traveled through the digestive track ultimately resulting in people having severe cases of diarrhea due to the large quantities of Olestra they ingested. It's also important to note that not all forms of Calories are processed in the same manner or at the same rate. Long distance runners for example often consume complex carbs such as those found in pasta because they're high energy, but slow to metabolize. This gives then a good steady energy supply, as opposed to something like a candy bar that results in a fast spike of energy which is much harder for the body to process in a useful way.
Well that's easy, we just need to re-sequence our genome to change the way our body processes foods. Of course we'll either need to tweak it so people feel full faster and end up eating much less, or else everyone is going to be spending a lot of time in the restroom, but hey, it's doable.
The only problem with high calcium content is it can lead to kidney stones. I had a friend in high school that used to really love cereal (2 sometimes 3 bowls a day), and he'd been eating like that since he was little. Somewhere around junior year he got diagnosed as having kidney stones and had to cut way back on his cereal intake.
I myself am diabetic (type 1, genetic defect, not caused by my diet) so I'm very aware of carbs, and to a lesser extent fats (fats tend not to directly affect sugar levels, but they will retard the absorption of sugars into the blood stream). One of the things I've discovered is that if you just eat normal without going overboard on anything you usually do pretty good (my weight has been constant for the last 4 years and I don't go out of my way to exercise of eat healthy). I occasionally have a slice of cake, or some other high carb item, and I pretty regularly take in ~100g of carbs at meals (not as hard as you'd think, some mash potatoes or french fries at a meal will get you almost there all by themselves), but at the same time I tend to eat a lot less than other people even though I often eat more. It's not uncommon for me to only have 1 meal a day, even though it's usually a pretty big one. I think the big problem here is people are looking for something to blame and missing the point entirely which is that it's the combination of everything you eat that determines the result, not one particular component. It would be like someone looking at all the components of gunpowder and trying to find the one to blame for making it explosive, it's all the components working together that leads to the reaction, not any one component on its own.
We're sorry for any inconvenience, those responsible have been sacked. We will now continue at great expense in a completely different fashion. Also, my sister was once bitten by a moose.
Well, a state list of unwed mothers receiving support I could understand, but even if that was the case once they were married (and presumably no longer receiving support based on her unwed status) any names should be removed from that list. From the sounds of it this is more like the sexual predator lists that many states maintain, in which once you get on the list you stay on it even if you're later cleared of any charges. All these state lists make me nervous because many of them carry rather stiff penalties and ramifications for being on them, and it's all to easy to accidentally get on one of them, and due to the nature of these bureaucracies all but impossible to get corrections or removals done. As someone also pointed out in another comment any penalties or fines applied due to being on one of these lists, particularly with department of families and children, are considered non-reimbursable if your later cleared of any wrong doing.
Reading between the lines I get the feeling the state was suing him on behalf of his wife, apparently without her consent. I think that has to do with them filing for child support based on her unwed status. It's probably standard practice that the court turns around in all these cases and files for child support from the father listed in the paperwork. Not saying it's right or legal that they do that, but that I think is the case here.
Yep, welcome to the modern world: where people deny the obvious to avoid legal liability.
-The further you are from retirement, the greater the fraction of your portfolio should be in stocks. This is not investment advice.
-I can feel, deep inside me, your later husband's presence, it's like he's talking to me, and he's telling me that he wants you to move on. This is for entertainment purposes only.
-For an upset stomach, drink a solution of baking soda, roughly 1 teaspoon diluted in one cup. This is not medical advice. Ah, the lovely world of legal CYA. If we weren't so sue happy none of that would be necessary, but every last one of those examples you gave is there for legal reasons (either because it's actually required, as in the whole IANAL thing, or to prevent lawsuits). It used to be that if you gave someone advice that was all it was, advice. You had no responsibility one way or another after that. Now days if you tell someone to go jump off a bridge and they do it, they'll probably try to sue you for telling them to. It's sad that we're forced to put disclaimers on everything just to avoid the hassle of being dragged into courts.
I just got a new workstation at my office and hadn't got around to installing FlashBlock/AdBlock+ like I normally do, but the dice.com add on slashdot finally convinced me to do it. For some reason whenever the dice.com ad loaded it would bring firefox to a crawl until I killed the window it was in or reloaded that page and got a different ad cycled in.
Actually I don't use NoScript because a lot of the sites I frequent have AJAX components, but I do use FlashBlock and that takes care of a lot of the problems.
Actually, these are getting into some reputable sites through places like DoubleClick, which is one of the domains that AdBlock targets, so in this case it will protect you. Now, on less reputable sites that are getting these things directly instead of through DoubleClick, yeah, AdBlock won't do much there.
That's because he's part of the system that gets the government money, so his education is a lot more important. The police don't need much education to do what the government wants them to do (in fact a lot of education probably makes them less likely to do what the government wants).
Believe it or not, law enforcement reacted to bomb threats all the time, before 9/11. The only difference between then and now is people like you that have no idea what you're talking about and now want to punish law enforcement for properly and professionally doing their job. Yes, they used to react to bomb threats, but this was not a bomb threat! No one called up and said they were going to blow anything up, and anyone could look at these things and at least think it was likely it wasn't a bomb. The point is, since we've gone on this whole 'OMG TERRISTS!!!' kick everyone has lost all common sense. If it has wires and it looks homemade it MUST BE A BOMB!!! Quick, find the person responsible and execute them, they're terrorists! The proper response should have been to send the bomb squad out to look one of these things over, and after they examined it, if they had even an ounce of training they would know there was no threat from these devices. To take any action at all after that beyond perhaps suggesting to the guy that planted them that he might want to mention to the police that he's putting these things up prior to doing so is pure idiocy. He most certainly should not have been charged with anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there's two kinds of "bloated" and people often don't differentiate between the two. There's bloated in the sense of being written poorly and wasting a lot of resources for no reason, and then there's bloated in the sense of having a whole bunch of features that various people may or may not want (which usually determines if they consider it bloated or not). The first kind of bloated of course is clearly a valid criticism that needs to be addressed, the second kind however is mostly a matter of taste. Myself, I like a bit of eye candy, but at the same time I don't like to waste a lot of space, so I tend to lean towards either Enlightenment, or Blackbox for my WM. Both can be configured to be relatively minimalist in terms of screen real estate used by the various pieces of the WM, but in the case of enlightenment it tends to use some resources because of all the eye candy options. Does that make it bloated? Maybe, but that really depends on if you like eye candy or not.
1982 called, they want their window manager back.
All kidding aside, what do you think of something a little more up to date but still minimalist like blackbox, or Xfce?
I usually use GNOME because I don't like the menus in KDE, but that's really neither here nor there as given a choice I won't use either. For me Enlightenment is the best. It's got the flexible menus of GNOME, with the eye candy of KDE. Only problem with enlightenment is it's not exactly the most stable WM ever made. The development is also spotty with long patches going between usable releases.
Dude, that link just got slashdotted hard. Think twice before posting a link to something on /. even in the comments.
You can talk in Klingon without screaming? Who knew.
I for one welcome our new skin cell based stem-cell overlords.
That said, I really like his work and can't think of any other ST actor I'd more like to hang out with.
I don't know about that, Patrick Stewart really is an amazing actor. Of course Wil does have that whole geek thing going for him, so maybe he'd be more entertaining long run, but it would still be pretty cool to have a chance to chat with Patrick Stewart.I find it kind of sad to think of Wil reading through the comments on here. I'm sure as a regular to slashdot he's probably used to the trolling that goes on, but it's still got to be hard on him at some level to read some of this stuff. I for one hadn't heard about this book before now, but I think I'll go pickup a copy. It's always interesting to see a fellow geeks perspective on life, and Wil usually does a pretty good job of expressing that perspective.
Since I'm a borderline socialist, the obvious answer for me is government nannying, but I'm open to suggestions.
I'm a darwinist, I think the problem will take care of itself.The flaw with your assumption is that the body will always full utilize all Calories that are consumed when it has been shown on many occasions that certain forms of Calories cannot be processed by the body. For a good example of this see Olestra, which while good in theory, wasn't so much in practice. People were told it was the miracle fat that you could eat as much of as you wanted and it wouldn't make you fat, which is technically true, but overlooks what happens to all that fat you eat. With the body unable to process the fats, they simply traveled through the digestive track ultimately resulting in people having severe cases of diarrhea due to the large quantities of Olestra they ingested. It's also important to note that not all forms of Calories are processed in the same manner or at the same rate. Long distance runners for example often consume complex carbs such as those found in pasta because they're high energy, but slow to metabolize. This gives then a good steady energy supply, as opposed to something like a candy bar that results in a fast spike of energy which is much harder for the body to process in a useful way.
Well that's easy, we just need to re-sequence our genome to change the way our body processes foods. Of course we'll either need to tweak it so people feel full faster and end up eating much less, or else everyone is going to be spending a lot of time in the restroom, but hey, it's doable.
The only problem with high calcium content is it can lead to kidney stones. I had a friend in high school that used to really love cereal (2 sometimes 3 bowls a day), and he'd been eating like that since he was little. Somewhere around junior year he got diagnosed as having kidney stones and had to cut way back on his cereal intake.
I myself am diabetic (type 1, genetic defect, not caused by my diet) so I'm very aware of carbs, and to a lesser extent fats (fats tend not to directly affect sugar levels, but they will retard the absorption of sugars into the blood stream). One of the things I've discovered is that if you just eat normal without going overboard on anything you usually do pretty good (my weight has been constant for the last 4 years and I don't go out of my way to exercise of eat healthy). I occasionally have a slice of cake, or some other high carb item, and I pretty regularly take in ~100g of carbs at meals (not as hard as you'd think, some mash potatoes or french fries at a meal will get you almost there all by themselves), but at the same time I tend to eat a lot less than other people even though I often eat more. It's not uncommon for me to only have 1 meal a day, even though it's usually a pretty big one. I think the big problem here is people are looking for something to blame and missing the point entirely which is that it's the combination of everything you eat that determines the result, not one particular component. It would be like someone looking at all the components of gunpowder and trying to find the one to blame for making it explosive, it's all the components working together that leads to the reaction, not any one component on its own.
We're sorry for any inconvenience, those responsible have been sacked. We will now continue at great expense in a completely different fashion. Also, my sister was once bitten by a moose.
Well, a state list of unwed mothers receiving support I could understand, but even if that was the case once they were married (and presumably no longer receiving support based on her unwed status) any names should be removed from that list. From the sounds of it this is more like the sexual predator lists that many states maintain, in which once you get on the list you stay on it even if you're later cleared of any charges. All these state lists make me nervous because many of them carry rather stiff penalties and ramifications for being on them, and it's all to easy to accidentally get on one of them, and due to the nature of these bureaucracies all but impossible to get corrections or removals done. As someone also pointed out in another comment any penalties or fines applied due to being on one of these lists, particularly with department of families and children, are considered non-reimbursable if your later cleared of any wrong doing.
Reading between the lines I get the feeling the state was suing him on behalf of his wife, apparently without her consent. I think that has to do with them filing for child support based on her unwed status. It's probably standard practice that the court turns around in all these cases and files for child support from the father listed in the paperwork. Not saying it's right or legal that they do that, but that I think is the case here.
-The further you are from retirement, the greater the fraction of your portfolio should be in stocks. This is not investment advice.
-I can feel, deep inside me, your later husband's presence, it's like he's talking to me, and he's telling me that he wants you to move on. This is for entertainment purposes only.
-For an upset stomach, drink a solution of baking soda, roughly 1 teaspoon diluted in one cup. This is not medical advice. Ah, the lovely world of legal CYA. If we weren't so sue happy none of that would be necessary, but every last one of those examples you gave is there for legal reasons (either because it's actually required, as in the whole IANAL thing, or to prevent lawsuits). It used to be that if you gave someone advice that was all it was, advice. You had no responsibility one way or another after that. Now days if you tell someone to go jump off a bridge and they do it, they'll probably try to sue you for telling them to. It's sad that we're forced to put disclaimers on everything just to avoid the hassle of being dragged into courts.
WTF? State list of un-wed fathers? Why the hell is that any of their business?
I just got a new workstation at my office and hadn't got around to installing FlashBlock/AdBlock+ like I normally do, but the dice.com add on slashdot finally convinced me to do it. For some reason whenever the dice.com ad loaded it would bring firefox to a crawl until I killed the window it was in or reloaded that page and got a different ad cycled in.
FlashBlock is your friend.
Actually I don't use NoScript because a lot of the sites I frequent have AJAX components, but I do use FlashBlock and that takes care of a lot of the problems.
On reputable sites I usually disable AdBlock plus, but I always use FlashBlock, as nothing annoys me more than flash ads.
Actually, these are getting into some reputable sites through places like DoubleClick, which is one of the domains that AdBlock targets, so in this case it will protect you. Now, on less reputable sites that are getting these things directly instead of through DoubleClick, yeah, AdBlock won't do much there.
That's because he's part of the system that gets the government money, so his education is a lot more important. The police don't need much education to do what the government wants them to do (in fact a lot of education probably makes them less likely to do what the government wants).