I guess to be fair we should compare a list of all the coal related disasters. Wouldn't want to do that, though, because it would show how meaningless the nuclear list really is.
Because the other options are unworkable pipedreams? Even massive improvements in wind/solar will not change the fact they cannot supply base load in all conditions and you will still need an always-on coal or nuclear plant for the times it can't work. Coal/oil and nuclear happen to be the only options that do not currently require violation of the laws of physics.
What's wrong with caring about the moral and economic repercussions of allowing corporations to own ideas? Or caring about government-sanctioned (or even run) extortion against citizens and unaffiliated content producers? Copyright needs to end. If the pirate party is the only party backing that move, then I support it. It doesn't mean that is the only issue I care about, but that I can't support a party that supports copyright.
So your answer to racism against whites is dishonesty? I'm sorry, but your friends who lied are just as bad as the organizations which are giving grants to specific groups.
You can have your new UI, but the minute the developers decide to completely prevent people from using an older-style UI, is the minute the project is mismanaged. Killing your existing user base on hope of getting a new one (or that the old will stick it out) is a bad move.
The process would be working as it should if there were a reasonable number of forks, if the old projects eventually merged back in, and if they forks themselves were better. This is unfortunately not the case. We just end up with more mismanaged projects, dividing up developer time, and making support more difficult. We pretty much used to have KDE and Gnome; now look what there is. Are any of them actually better?
If they do not have congressional approval for doing what they are doing in the first place, why do you think this bill would make any difference? No approval is still no approval, meaning they must have it as it stands. Take it up with the court or stop astroturfing.
Congress gave power to the FCC to make these rules. Your point being?
The funny part is that the "bureaucracy" seems to care more about the people than the elected officials. Gotta wonder why that's the case before you start throwing what little protections we are getting under the bus.
"Either do better or STFU. The developers have no obligation to serve you, princess. [...] Maybe the problem is on your side? You could, you know, try a different DE."
Thank you for so flawlessly illustrating why Linux will no longer be a viable OS in 10 years. Insult the person pointing out the problem, claim it is their fault, tell them to fix it. Yet, people find it shocking that Linux isn't considered "user-friendly."
The problem, to me, is not that the UI has changed. I'm generally OK with changes, even bad ones. I can deal with it.
What becomes an issue is when all the GUIs out there seem to have showstopping bugs. KDE4 is a great example. I haven't used it in about 6 months, because it was nearly too glitchy to use and the constant graphical errors were starting to make my head hurt. I'm sure someone will tell me "KDE 4 works now!", but that's a lie and you know it. KDE 4 "worked" when I was forced back to Windows because I could barely use Firefox without having a seizure or at least slamming my keyboard through my monitor. I didn't even use the first releases of KDE 4: they wouldn't run. I only went to 4 at all when programs began to require QT4.
Yes, my ATI drivers had a hand in this, but that's part of the problem itself: why do all new GUIs demand glossy, sugar-coated rendering at the cost of my processing power? Why do they do so especially when they are aware of the driver issues that their member base constantly faces? Most GUI projects only want to look "cool" and seem new, not actually provide a usable product. That is evident in the horrible (or even non-existent) support for software rendering. For the record, even KDE4's non-accelerated mode rendered incorrectly.
I used to be the biggest proponent of Linux around, but it is really difficult to advocate something when its quality is dropping so quickly, and you yourself are barely able to operate it. Linux-sphere developers don't care about the user anymore, they care about themselves and doing what they want. This is evident in how almost every Linux-oriented project is now run as a dictatorship. Do not question project leaders. They know best. It wasn't always that way, and it needs to go back. The reason we are seeing more forks of major projects than ever before is precisely because of that. "My way or the highway" invariably leads to forks.
Meanwhile, Windows still seems to have no issues. I hate that I am using it, but I actually have things I need to do. I can't rely on a system that is built on so many flawed systems and only gets worse with every release. It's time for Linux developers to pull their heads out of their asses and start working to actually make a usable product again, or others will start jumping ship, too.
Another example of all this is Blender. Blender was a love-it-or-hate-it GUI. Eventually, if you forced yourself to use it, you would love it and no longer want to use anything else. Getting to that point was more brutal than anything, but it was arguably worth it. So what did the developers do in the most recent version? Completely change the UI. Every hotkey changed, the menu layout completely flipped around, and in general all the things the users had gotten used to no longer being as they were. Worst part is, it is still impossible to put it even close to how it was. I'm not convinced this change was in any way for the good: it's still as hard to learn as ever, and of course, now EVERYONE has to learn it again. Why was this done? Who knows. Certainly not me. I frankly don't care, either, as I no longer use Blender, nor will I ever use it again. And, yet again, Maya and 3DS keep on.
Kind of makes the requirement to have a warrant useless if the public can't verify that they really had one, don't you think? Opens all sorts of nasty holes, like warrants being issued after the fact, or "we have one, we promise."
Because Microsoft has never used vague legal threats to leverage the Linux market before, right? Except those times they did...
The less Microsoft in Linux, the safer it is to use. If some programmers need to learn a real language in order to deal with that, then guess what? They will have to. There isn't a shortage of languages leading to a requirement to use Mono.
I applaud this move and hope other distros follows. Mono has no place in Linux. It is an EEE torpedo of the worst kind.
Careful, you sound like you may fit in well with the eminent scientists who back in the day dismissed a roman catholic priest's "hypothesis of the primeval atom". Dismissing it because (1) it came from a priest and (2) it "smelled of creationism". Today we know this theory by a phrase used by these scientists to mock the hypothesis, "the big bang theory". Men of science are not above letting their personal biases and social/group norms interfere with their objectivity.
And yet, it is now a part of the canon of science, in spite of that. I'm still wondering when major religions will not just stop questioning, but actually declare a part of their religion, things like evolution and quantum mechanics. It seems the closest they can get is dragged by public outcry into making some sort of declaration not to talk about it anymore. Point being, science might have some bias, and doesn't everything, but it definitely overcomes it faster.
In the end, it is what you say, not who you are, that matters. The problem I have is when people who have avowed beliefs not backed by any form of evidence begin to make claims involving them. Want to be a creationist christian and a chemist? Sure, why not. But don't act as if I am small-minded if I am more suspicious of him than of others when the same person goes into biology and begins making findings that he claims undermine evolution. Further, I am entirely within my right to laugh at every "theologian," preacher, or priest which declares he knows better than science, yet refuses to provide evidence, or says religion is on the same level as science.
"Many religious people and some churches believe that belief in god may require faith but that understanding god's creation is done through science. That includes both the evolution the universe and the evolution of life."
Which is all fine and good, but that doesn't give them the right to attempt to dictate what is science, should it offend them at some point. I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.
"Science doesn't need your elitism or your contempt of other views as a champion, but rather people who present quantifiable alternatives to a viewpoint which are compelling to those who are interested."
Considering those have been provided and provided again, ad nauseam, you'll forgive me if I continue saying that those following a 2000-3000 year old book in favor of modern facts (or even philosophy) aren't worth listening to. If they bring something serious to the table, I'm sure I will be forced to take note, even against my will, just because there is that fundamental difference about actually caring what is true. Until then, I'll leave you to the unending stream of new ways to weasel "god" into biology/physics/politics.
Kind of in the same manner as vestigial organs, what always kind of made me wonder was why we need men and women if humans are designed in God's image. Strictly speaking, we should reproduce by agamogenesis. Unless there is something the bible isn't telling us... it does seem fairly insistent that God is a "he" in ever version I saw. oh well, I get fridge logic from religion. At least it has a better ending than lost.
As far as agnostic, I think the term is kind of useless. I don't think anyone takes the position that there is definitely no god (even people like me who love to attack the idea of god existing). There is a very high probability, I would say, that something of some form exists outside of what we consider the universe; if only because the current definition is narrowed mostly to what we are sure exists. However, going by the concept of belief requiring proof, not knowing something exists is essentially the same as it not existing. It is always possible to be wrong if you say something doesn't exist and at some point it turns out to, but the two positions are for all practical purposes identical until that happens. But I digress into epistemology... .
I agree, but there is a point where it becomes demeaning; I am not sure how much it is accomplishing. Everyone who watches debates only sees their pre-existing positions winning, which doesn't necessarily do anything productive. Maybe we need more comedians to take up the job. If there is one thing that can shake a belief system, it is feeling that others view it as absurd. Religion provides many excuses like "they're working for the devil," "they hate god," etc; but all of those are too serious to apply to simply being made an ass of in front of an audience. Too bad there is only one Stephen Fry.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess to be fair we should compare a list of all the coal related disasters. Wouldn't want to do that, though, because it would show how meaningless the nuclear list really is.
Because the other options are unworkable pipedreams? Even massive improvements in wind/solar will not change the fact they cannot supply base load in all conditions and you will still need an always-on coal or nuclear plant for the times it can't work. Coal/oil and nuclear happen to be the only options that do not currently require violation of the laws of physics.
What's wrong with caring about the moral and economic repercussions of allowing corporations to own ideas? Or caring about government-sanctioned (or even run) extortion against citizens and unaffiliated content producers? Copyright needs to end. If the pirate party is the only party backing that move, then I support it. It doesn't mean that is the only issue I care about, but that I can't support a party that supports copyright.
So your answer to racism against whites is dishonesty? I'm sorry, but your friends who lied are just as bad as the organizations which are giving grants to specific groups.
Must be nice to live in the Capitalist Dreamworld. Maybe you should learn history and see what kind of economic disasters that invariably causes.
You can have your new UI, but the minute the developers decide to completely prevent people from using an older-style UI, is the minute the project is mismanaged. Killing your existing user base on hope of getting a new one (or that the old will stick it out) is a bad move.
The process would be working as it should if there were a reasonable number of forks, if the old projects eventually merged back in, and if they forks themselves were better. This is unfortunately not the case. We just end up with more mismanaged projects, dividing up developer time, and making support more difficult. We pretty much used to have KDE and Gnome; now look what there is. Are any of them actually better?
If they do not have congressional approval for doing what they are doing in the first place, why do you think this bill would make any difference? No approval is still no approval, meaning they must have it as it stands. Take it up with the court or stop astroturfing.
Congress gave power to the FCC to make these rules. Your point being?
The funny part is that the "bureaucracy" seems to care more about the people than the elected officials. Gotta wonder why that's the case before you start throwing what little protections we are getting under the bus.
Which makes us a banana republic, since there is a point that the rest of the world just abolishes copyright and ignores us.
"Either do better or STFU. The developers have no obligation to serve you, princess. [...] Maybe the problem is on your side? You could, you know, try a different DE."
Thank you for so flawlessly illustrating why Linux will no longer be a viable OS in 10 years. Insult the person pointing out the problem, claim it is their fault, tell them to fix it. Yet, people find it shocking that Linux isn't considered "user-friendly."
"U.S. debt is equal to its GDP"
...which is about as relevant as your mortgage being "equal" to your yearly income. Actually, most Americans would kill for that deal.
Equal is in quotes, because as some might notice, GDP is measured in $/year, while debt is measured in $. $ != $/year.
The problem, to me, is not that the UI has changed. I'm generally OK with changes, even bad ones. I can deal with it.
What becomes an issue is when all the GUIs out there seem to have showstopping bugs. KDE4 is a great example. I haven't used it in about 6 months, because it was nearly too glitchy to use and the constant graphical errors were starting to make my head hurt. I'm sure someone will tell me "KDE 4 works now!", but that's a lie and you know it. KDE 4 "worked" when I was forced back to Windows because I could barely use Firefox without having a seizure or at least slamming my keyboard through my monitor. I didn't even use the first releases of KDE 4: they wouldn't run. I only went to 4 at all when programs began to require QT4.
Yes, my ATI drivers had a hand in this, but that's part of the problem itself: why do all new GUIs demand glossy, sugar-coated rendering at the cost of my processing power? Why do they do so especially when they are aware of the driver issues that their member base constantly faces? Most GUI projects only want to look "cool" and seem new, not actually provide a usable product. That is evident in the horrible (or even non-existent) support for software rendering. For the record, even KDE4's non-accelerated mode rendered incorrectly.
I used to be the biggest proponent of Linux around, but it is really difficult to advocate something when its quality is dropping so quickly, and you yourself are barely able to operate it. Linux-sphere developers don't care about the user anymore, they care about themselves and doing what they want. This is evident in how almost every Linux-oriented project is now run as a dictatorship. Do not question project leaders. They know best. It wasn't always that way, and it needs to go back. The reason we are seeing more forks of major projects than ever before is precisely because of that. "My way or the highway" invariably leads to forks.
Meanwhile, Windows still seems to have no issues. I hate that I am using it, but I actually have things I need to do. I can't rely on a system that is built on so many flawed systems and only gets worse with every release. It's time for Linux developers to pull their heads out of their asses and start working to actually make a usable product again, or others will start jumping ship, too.
Another example of all this is Blender. Blender was a love-it-or-hate-it GUI. Eventually, if you forced yourself to use it, you would love it and no longer want to use anything else. Getting to that point was more brutal than anything, but it was arguably worth it. So what did the developers do in the most recent version? Completely change the UI. Every hotkey changed, the menu layout completely flipped around, and in general all the things the users had gotten used to no longer being as they were. Worst part is, it is still impossible to put it even close to how it was. I'm not convinced this change was in any way for the good: it's still as hard to learn as ever, and of course, now EVERYONE has to learn it again. Why was this done? Who knows. Certainly not me. I frankly don't care, either, as I no longer use Blender, nor will I ever use it again. And, yet again, Maya and 3DS keep on.
Kind of makes the requirement to have a warrant useless if the public can't verify that they really had one, don't you think? Opens all sorts of nasty holes, like warrants being issued after the fact, or "we have one, we promise."
Because Microsoft has never used vague legal threats to leverage the Linux market before, right? Except those times they did...
The less Microsoft in Linux, the safer it is to use. If some programmers need to learn a real language in order to deal with that, then guess what? They will have to. There isn't a shortage of languages leading to a requirement to use Mono.
I applaud this move and hope other distros follows. Mono has no place in Linux. It is an EEE torpedo of the worst kind.
So at what age does one stop being a douchebag?
Let's restrict government to people older than 25, then. It should solve all our problems.
Oh, wait...
Build a bigger piano!
Interestingly, when I did speak to knowledgeable Christians, I had the exact same reaction you just described.
If those are your issues, I think you and Descartes need to have a talk. Amusingly, he pretty much started this whole "atheist" thing accidentally.
And yet, it is now a part of the canon of science, in spite of that. I'm still wondering when major religions will not just stop questioning, but actually declare a part of their religion, things like evolution and quantum mechanics. It seems the closest they can get is dragged by public outcry into making some sort of declaration not to talk about it anymore. Point being, science might have some bias, and doesn't everything, but it definitely overcomes it faster.
In the end, it is what you say, not who you are, that matters. The problem I have is when people who have avowed beliefs not backed by any form of evidence begin to make claims involving them. Want to be a creationist christian and a chemist? Sure, why not. But don't act as if I am small-minded if I am more suspicious of him than of others when the same person goes into biology and begins making findings that he claims undermine evolution. Further, I am entirely within my right to laugh at every "theologian," preacher, or priest which declares he knows better than science, yet refuses to provide evidence, or says religion is on the same level as science.
"Many religious people and some churches believe that belief in god may require faith but that understanding god's creation is done through science. That includes both the evolution the universe and the evolution of life."
Which is all fine and good, but that doesn't give them the right to attempt to dictate what is science, should it offend them at some point. I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.
"Science doesn't need your elitism or your contempt of other views as a champion, but rather people who present quantifiable alternatives to a viewpoint which are compelling to those who are interested."
Considering those have been provided and provided again, ad nauseam, you'll forgive me if I continue saying that those following a 2000-3000 year old book in favor of modern facts (or even philosophy) aren't worth listening to. If they bring something serious to the table, I'm sure I will be forced to take note, even against my will, just because there is that fundamental difference about actually caring what is true. Until then, I'll leave you to the unending stream of new ways to weasel "god" into biology/physics/politics.
Kind of in the same manner as vestigial organs, what always kind of made me wonder was why we need men and women if humans are designed in God's image. Strictly speaking, we should reproduce by agamogenesis. Unless there is something the bible isn't telling us... it does seem fairly insistent that God is a "he" in ever version I saw. oh well, I get fridge logic from religion. At least it has a better ending than lost.
As far as agnostic, I think the term is kind of useless. I don't think anyone takes the position that there is definitely no god (even people like me who love to attack the idea of god existing). There is a very high probability, I would say, that something of some form exists outside of what we consider the universe; if only because the current definition is narrowed mostly to what we are sure exists. However, going by the concept of belief requiring proof, not knowing something exists is essentially the same as it not existing. It is always possible to be wrong if you say something doesn't exist and at some point it turns out to, but the two positions are for all practical purposes identical until that happens. But I digress into epistemology... .
I agree, but there is a point where it becomes demeaning; I am not sure how much it is accomplishing. Everyone who watches debates only sees their pre-existing positions winning, which doesn't necessarily do anything productive. Maybe we need more comedians to take up the job. If there is one thing that can shake a belief system, it is feeling that others view it as absurd. Religion provides many excuses like "they're working for the devil," "they hate god," etc; but all of those are too serious to apply to simply being made an ass of in front of an audience. Too bad there is only one Stephen Fry.
The only way to negotiate facts is to supply better facts.