There's a right way and a wrong way of doing it. Probably the best interface I've seen in some time is in Vuescan. Options and settings which have no influence in the current mode disappear and only ones that actually function are available. Granted it is a bit confusing at first, but because they're located next to the area I'm working with, I can readily find them without having to go hunting for them.
The problem with the Ribbon is that anybody that last used Office before they added the ribbon more or less has to completely relearn how to use the products. Which is not good in cases like this where the original organization was functioning.
Ultimately, this sounds more like the start of a pissing match between Apple and MS over who can force their customers to put up with the stupidest stuff.
I'd be curious to see what the numbers are for bug fixes submitted by people being paid to fix bugs and those being submitted by people that just want to make the OS better. And really for various open source projects.
Chances are good that most bugs are being fixed by programmers that are annoyed by the bugs or are being paid to do it. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with it, bug fixing can be incredibly time consuming and ultimately most users probably won't notice. Chances are that if they do notice, the initial QA was completely inept.
Depends, were there 13k bugs or was that 13k bug reports. Often times you can nominally reduce the number significantly by going through and merging or closing duplicate reports and get a seemingly significant reduction in bugs without changing any code.
Also, many of them may have been related to code which is no longer present in Firefox.
You're assumptions are botched there. People with any sense at all don't do that. If you've got the car, then chances are you're going to be parking in a parking lot with a charging station. You're complaint here is tantamount to seeing a model T and being unimpressed because it's not useful outside the city limits because they haven't yet created suitable roads.
For most people though, that's more than adequate. I could just about drive all the way across town and back on a charge. Something I wouldn't do because I've got better things to do.Sure, it's less than ideal range, but it's pretty ignorant to suggest that most people, at least in cities, aren't going to get enough distance in a reasonable time to make it work.
Yes, and fuel cell cars are probably still 30 years away from being affordable.Whereas right now there are electric cars which are affordable, granted not to me, but it's getting to the point where normal people can afford to buy them.
Plus, what precisely happens if some unforeseen limitation prevents fuel cells from working substantially or delays their mass market release? You'd be stuck where we are presently and at some point we're going to hit some sort of hard limit on what we can emit without seeing significant consequences.
And where do you get the electricity? You can charge things really fast, but having batteries that are powerful enough to move a car for an appreciable distance that charge in 10 minutes are going to require a huge amount of juice to power them. Not to mention the risk of explosion if the battery is damaged or fire if any of the equipment is malfunctioning.
Not at this stage with cars it isn't. The technology just hasn't matured enough yet for that to be a significant factor.The issue of powering a car via batteries isn't one that's easily solved, there are options like D cells that are very economical in terms of weight, but can't be recharged and there's ones that can be recharged, but would take a weak to charge using household voltages.
At this stage, they should be encouraged to experiment,chances are by the time they've got it figured out and the infrastructure is in place, that the patents will be readily available for other manufacturers. But, beyond that there's a compelling reason for them to ultimately standardize on something the power stations are daunting enough without having to have a dozen different standard adapters.
Not going to happen. The amount of energy that's wasted charging a cell phone is pretty minimal probably only about as much as from a traditional charger. However trying to charge a car like that would come with all sorts of issues like cancer risks and wasted energy. At the end of the day you'd be better off just having charging stations providing free juice as it would be a lot less expensive and a lot less risky.
Except that if you're carrying a generator around with you take a significant hit to your gas mileage. Besides that we've already got those, they're called hybrids and in the long term they carry the same deficits and deficiencies that other gas powered vehicles do. Albeit at a lesser rate. But you're still going to have to keep the things fueled and for folks that are just driving around town there's no advantage at all.
We can be pretty confident that it's the case because the only reason that anybody's interested in electric cars is that gas and diesel powered ones are on their way out. And those gas and diesel vehicles are on their way out because we don't have limitless gas nor do we have limitless ability to emit noxious fumes either.
They're taking their time as well they should. ICVs are on their way out, doesn't matter whether the alternatives are less convenient, we only have so much oil available in places that we can get it and we've only got so much pollution that we can dump into the atmosphere, both of which are becoming harder to justify.
The technology for electric cars is likely to be in place for a really, really long time, probably longer than we've been driving ICVs.
Ultracapacitors aren't the solution in the way that you're suggesting. My guess is that we'll be switching them in and out the way that we do batteries. Probably using a couple sets for most cars.
The reason being that the amount of amperage and voltage necessary to charge a car in a reasonable amount of time is a lot more than what you want in a house. Granted, you'd probably give it its own circuit which carries more juice, but you really don't want to provide the possibility of somebody trying to fix their house DIY style and accidentally coming into contact with more juice than expected.
I tried Redhat years ago and that dependency hell was something I remember well. I'd download a package and try to install it, which would always fail and demand a few RPMs sacrifice, which I'd download and it would go on like that until I gave up and chucked the install in the bin and went back to FreeBSD.
These days there are plenty of Linux Distros that realize that if they can tell you what the dependencies are, then perhaps they should offer to download them for you.
Which is why for some things like hate crimes the federal government is allowed to step in on what would normally be a state charge if the local law enforcement can't or won't enforce the law.
It's definitely not ideal, but it's hardly without precedent for a corrupt local sheriff's office or police department to refuse to enforce laws when convenient.
With respect to the sculpture in Chicago, the "don't photograph with permission of the sculptor" statement was specifically with regard to commercial photography since the sculptor retained copyright on his work. I'm not actually sure even that would stand up in court, since it's a public space (just like you don't need permission to photograph people in a public space, even though it's still a good idea) - however I can understand the thinking behind it.
We had a similar controversy about our Troll under the Aurora Bridge in Seattle, that one was resolved on the side of the public because the statue is owned by the city. And as a result anybody that wishes to take photos of it or climb around on it is free to do so.
Except the police aren't your employees, they are government employees. Which is definitely different and definitely an important distinction. Police couldn't function very well if they were trying to do their job where everybody out there was their boss.
You're correct. In this case it was the fact that the person managing that infrastructure wasn't qualified and the gateway was kept in a room without adequate cooling.
That being said, there's other reasons why this isn't a wise idea, some of which are related to what happens when infrastructure 3 states away is having issues. I remember times when that would cause slow downs and problems. Granted that shouldn't be an issue these days, but then again companies should pay to have these things done correctly.
And ultimately, mission critical infrastructure should only be off site as a backup or in cases where the users aren't all in one place. If you've got most of your employees in one or two buildings, then its' really not a great idea to have the infrastructure somewhere else completely without some means of caching or otherwise working when the machines are down.
More or less, the legal system in the US has gotten to the point where you really need to be a lawyer in order to understand when you're breaking the law.
I've had to use them at work and it doesn't work anywhere near as well as folks think. Granted it probably does work if you've got the server onsite, but really, you shouldn't have a server onsite without a backup. The problems we had were that the server was being run offsite, and consequently whenever the gateway would be down we wouldn't be able to do portions of our job. And even when it wasn't completely down it might be as slow as molasses, which again would hurt productivity.
Sure it's convenient and all, but we're hardly at the point where having a web server handling this sort of thing is wise.
Yes, but when I bought my Nexus One, I pretty quickly decided that I hated the UI and ditched it for Cyanogenmod. Which I was able to do with instructions provided by Google itself.
I think that Google providing the specific instructions to unlock the phone is a pretty good reason to buy the phone. Just don't be stupid and get a phone which can't be easily unlocked in an approved way.
It's not hypocrisy you too can use a pseudonym if you want to, you just also have to give them your real name and IIRC people would be able to find that information on the site without too much effort.
Also, Google does allow people to use the names their commonly known by, without requiring that you be a celebrity.
Perhaps, but an email account can store years worth of personal correspondences to which one has an attachment. Which is why I always back up my emails. But, even without that, it's still a PITA to change addresses when you've had an address for any length of time. And you're risking the possibility of somebody from years back not being able to get in touch with you. Which is probably not a big deal, but it is one factor to consider.
Email isn't private nor has it ever been private. It's sent unencrypted over the net through any number of intermediary servers which may or may not be located in countries with privacy laws. Anybody that's sending emails who honestly believes that they're private is just fooling themselves.
Consequently, the computer program that Google has reading the email and selecting the ads is not really that big of a deal compared with all the other privacy issues inherent in email.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a right way and a wrong way of doing it. Probably the best interface I've seen in some time is in Vuescan. Options and settings which have no influence in the current mode disappear and only ones that actually function are available. Granted it is a bit confusing at first, but because they're located next to the area I'm working with, I can readily find them without having to go hunting for them.
The problem with the Ribbon is that anybody that last used Office before they added the ribbon more or less has to completely relearn how to use the products. Which is not good in cases like this where the original organization was functioning.
Ultimately, this sounds more like the start of a pissing match between Apple and MS over who can force their customers to put up with the stupidest stuff.
I'd be curious to see what the numbers are for bug fixes submitted by people being paid to fix bugs and those being submitted by people that just want to make the OS better. And really for various open source projects.
Chances are good that most bugs are being fixed by programmers that are annoyed by the bugs or are being paid to do it. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with it, bug fixing can be incredibly time consuming and ultimately most users probably won't notice. Chances are that if they do notice, the initial QA was completely inept.
Depends, were there 13k bugs or was that 13k bug reports. Often times you can nominally reduce the number significantly by going through and merging or closing duplicate reports and get a seemingly significant reduction in bugs without changing any code.
Also, many of them may have been related to code which is no longer present in Firefox.
You're assumptions are botched there. People with any sense at all don't do that. If you've got the car, then chances are you're going to be parking in a parking lot with a charging station. You're complaint here is tantamount to seeing a model T and being unimpressed because it's not useful outside the city limits because they haven't yet created suitable roads.
For most people though, that's more than adequate. I could just about drive all the way across town and back on a charge. Something I wouldn't do because I've got better things to do.Sure, it's less than ideal range, but it's pretty ignorant to suggest that most people, at least in cities, aren't going to get enough distance in a reasonable time to make it work.
Yes, and fuel cell cars are probably still 30 years away from being affordable.Whereas right now there are electric cars which are affordable, granted not to me, but it's getting to the point where normal people can afford to buy them.
Plus, what precisely happens if some unforeseen limitation prevents fuel cells from working substantially or delays their mass market release? You'd be stuck where we are presently and at some point we're going to hit some sort of hard limit on what we can emit without seeing significant consequences.
And where do you get the electricity? You can charge things really fast, but having batteries that are powerful enough to move a car for an appreciable distance that charge in 10 minutes are going to require a huge amount of juice to power them. Not to mention the risk of explosion if the battery is damaged or fire if any of the equipment is malfunctioning.
Not at this stage with cars it isn't. The technology just hasn't matured enough yet for that to be a significant factor.The issue of powering a car via batteries isn't one that's easily solved, there are options like D cells that are very economical in terms of weight, but can't be recharged and there's ones that can be recharged, but would take a weak to charge using household voltages.
At this stage, they should be encouraged to experiment,chances are by the time they've got it figured out and the infrastructure is in place, that the patents will be readily available for other manufacturers. But, beyond that there's a compelling reason for them to ultimately standardize on something the power stations are daunting enough without having to have a dozen different standard adapters.
Not going to happen. The amount of energy that's wasted charging a cell phone is pretty minimal probably only about as much as from a traditional charger. However trying to charge a car like that would come with all sorts of issues like cancer risks and wasted energy. At the end of the day you'd be better off just having charging stations providing free juice as it would be a lot less expensive and a lot less risky.
Except that if you're carrying a generator around with you take a significant hit to your gas mileage. Besides that we've already got those, they're called hybrids and in the long term they carry the same deficits and deficiencies that other gas powered vehicles do. Albeit at a lesser rate. But you're still going to have to keep the things fueled and for folks that are just driving around town there's no advantage at all.
We can be pretty confident that it's the case because the only reason that anybody's interested in electric cars is that gas and diesel powered ones are on their way out. And those gas and diesel vehicles are on their way out because we don't have limitless gas nor do we have limitless ability to emit noxious fumes either.
They're taking their time as well they should. ICVs are on their way out, doesn't matter whether the alternatives are less convenient, we only have so much oil available in places that we can get it and we've only got so much pollution that we can dump into the atmosphere, both of which are becoming harder to justify.
The technology for electric cars is likely to be in place for a really, really long time, probably longer than we've been driving ICVs.
Ultracapacitors aren't the solution in the way that you're suggesting. My guess is that we'll be switching them in and out the way that we do batteries. Probably using a couple sets for most cars.
The reason being that the amount of amperage and voltage necessary to charge a car in a reasonable amount of time is a lot more than what you want in a house. Granted, you'd probably give it its own circuit which carries more juice, but you really don't want to provide the possibility of somebody trying to fix their house DIY style and accidentally coming into contact with more juice than expected.
I tried Redhat years ago and that dependency hell was something I remember well. I'd download a package and try to install it, which would always fail and demand a few RPMs sacrifice, which I'd download and it would go on like that until I gave up and chucked the install in the bin and went back to FreeBSD.
These days there are plenty of Linux Distros that realize that if they can tell you what the dependencies are, then perhaps they should offer to download them for you.
I'd say iOS, but clearly they're out too...
Parent demanding a troll mod for GP, gets modded troll can we get a +1 ironic mod?
Which is why for some things like hate crimes the federal government is allowed to step in on what would normally be a state charge if the local law enforcement can't or won't enforce the law.
It's definitely not ideal, but it's hardly without precedent for a corrupt local sheriff's office or police department to refuse to enforce laws when convenient.
With respect to the sculpture in Chicago, the "don't photograph with permission of the sculptor" statement was specifically with regard to commercial photography since the sculptor retained copyright on his work. I'm not actually sure even that would stand up in court, since it's a public space (just like you don't need permission to photograph people in a public space, even though it's still a good idea) - however I can understand the thinking behind it.
We had a similar controversy about our Troll under the Aurora Bridge in Seattle, that one was resolved on the side of the public because the statue is owned by the city. And as a result anybody that wishes to take photos of it or climb around on it is free to do so.
Except the police aren't your employees, they are government employees. Which is definitely different and definitely an important distinction. Police couldn't function very well if they were trying to do their job where everybody out there was their boss.
Now if only we can get privacy in pubic places at the airport...
You're correct. In this case it was the fact that the person managing that infrastructure wasn't qualified and the gateway was kept in a room without adequate cooling.
That being said, there's other reasons why this isn't a wise idea, some of which are related to what happens when infrastructure 3 states away is having issues. I remember times when that would cause slow downs and problems. Granted that shouldn't be an issue these days, but then again companies should pay to have these things done correctly.
And ultimately, mission critical infrastructure should only be off site as a backup or in cases where the users aren't all in one place. If you've got most of your employees in one or two buildings, then its' really not a great idea to have the infrastructure somewhere else completely without some means of caching or otherwise working when the machines are down.
More or less, the legal system in the US has gotten to the point where you really need to be a lawyer in order to understand when you're breaking the law.
I've had to use them at work and it doesn't work anywhere near as well as folks think. Granted it probably does work if you've got the server onsite, but really, you shouldn't have a server onsite without a backup. The problems we had were that the server was being run offsite, and consequently whenever the gateway would be down we wouldn't be able to do portions of our job. And even when it wasn't completely down it might be as slow as molasses, which again would hurt productivity.
Sure it's convenient and all, but we're hardly at the point where having a web server handling this sort of thing is wise.
Yes, but when I bought my Nexus One, I pretty quickly decided that I hated the UI and ditched it for Cyanogenmod. Which I was able to do with instructions provided by Google itself.
I think that Google providing the specific instructions to unlock the phone is a pretty good reason to buy the phone. Just don't be stupid and get a phone which can't be easily unlocked in an approved way.
It's not hypocrisy you too can use a pseudonym if you want to, you just also have to give them your real name and IIRC people would be able to find that information on the site without too much effort.
Also, Google does allow people to use the names their commonly known by, without requiring that you be a celebrity.
Perhaps, but an email account can store years worth of personal correspondences to which one has an attachment. Which is why I always back up my emails. But, even without that, it's still a PITA to change addresses when you've had an address for any length of time. And you're risking the possibility of somebody from years back not being able to get in touch with you. Which is probably not a big deal, but it is one factor to consider.
Email isn't private nor has it ever been private. It's sent unencrypted over the net through any number of intermediary servers which may or may not be located in countries with privacy laws. Anybody that's sending emails who honestly believes that they're private is just fooling themselves.
Consequently, the computer program that Google has reading the email and selecting the ads is not really that big of a deal compared with all the other privacy issues inherent in email.