And the only way to completely eliminate the "threat" of someone making their own guns is to then ban making anything at home, or even in a workplace without government supervision. Is that what you want?
Frankly, it doesn't matter what you should think. "Arms" doesn't mean "hunting rifles." It means "arms." It's a very broad term covering things like swords.
Is it silly to think people should be able to walk around with swords? Maybe... but then we need an ammendment to the constitution limiting what "arms" means, you can't just arbitrarily think it should mean something to everybody... and any laws that ban keeping and bearing swords violate the 2nd ammendment just as much as bans on firearms.
Ok, I'm using Unity... I click on the search, type "term," and Terminal comes up... as does UXTerm, and Xterm. "Terminal" is actually gnome-terminal. I did not have to remember the name - the search is smarter than you think. I type "calc" and get calculator... and LibreOffice Calc. I type "disk" when I don't feel like manually entering the commands to mount a partition (or forget how). I get "disks," which is what I'm looking for, as well as disk usage calculator and startup disk creator. Nothing unusual to remember.
I disagree... I'm not a huge Unity fan, but the search tool is very simple and generic way to find ANYTHING that's installed very simply, then you can pin it to the sidebar or put a link on your desktop if it's something you use a lot.
No, you find it once and pin it to the side bar for one click access. I'm not understanding all the brain dead responses - you find it using the thing that lets you find anything, which might take a few extra moments, but it's nice because it's generic; then when you find something you will use a lot, pin it to the side bar for one click access. I don't get why people enjoy complaining about stuff like this.
I use the terminal every day... so I open the search, find the terminal I want... AND THEN PIN IT TO THE SIDE BAR, because it's something I use a lot. If I don't use it a lot, it doesn't need to be that easy to get to.
I agree... people I talk to at work (decidedly NOT geeks; I'm the lone computer programmer) mostly don't like the show. They call it a show about smart people for dumb people. I guess, in a way, all sitcoms are for dumb people... smart people would be doing something better with their time, but I digress. IMO it's not a show "about" smart people, it's a show about social interactions among really quirky people. The science has very little to do with the show at all... it's an aside; a part of the setting, not the main point.
Well... I think what makes a show interesting is the quirky personalities of the characters. If they were "normal," it would be a pretty boring show. On top of that, many of the other scientists they meet on the show, including other faculty (Kripke excepted), are "normal." The deans and school presidents have been "normal." The Leslie character is pretty normal, all things considered. They had episodes where outside scientists came to visit, and despite the voracious sexual appetite (Dr. Plimpton), and another "Dr. Underhill," who was a handsome, "adventurous" motorcycle riding "stud" that Penny fell for (although he ends up being a jerk), they were pretty "normal."
I often find myself watching all sorts of fiction getting frustrated how stupidly people act in given situations... but if they didn't, it would be pretty boring.
I can't predict what would happen, but your last statement is what I've been looking for in all this mess... in the short term, things like this are almost always painful, there's a lot of readjusting to do, but it's what happens in the long term that matters. I would applaud Scotland's secession as long overdue and, yes, as an American, believe that freedom and independence are just as important (if not more) than financial security.
I agree... even 5 or 6 years ago, my father was visiting and asked to use my computer to check some things online... he sat down, ran the browser (Firefox at the time, which looks like the Firefox he has installed on Windows); he had to print out some PDFs he'd created that had his travel documents (hotel reservations and stuff), plugged it in, the window opened, he double clicked - they opened, he printed. Later I asked what he thought about using Linux, he said he didn't realize it wasn't Windows.
Of course, that's a simple example - he didn't do anything complicated, just double-clicked the Firefox icon and everything else was the same user experience, double-clicked some PDFs and the UX was the same... but while there are of course differences, anyone that can use MS Office could probably figure out Open/LibreOffice with little effort for all but pathalogical special cases.
Ubuntu user here... unless I'm installing something really odd (which, if you work for some municipality you probably shouldn't be doing on your work computer), software installation is just as easy - sometimes easier - than using Windows. The days of downloading something that won't install because of missing dependencies, so you download them and they won't install because of missing dependencies.... etc., etc., is long gone with pretty much every distribution.
Don't know how this will turn out, of course, they are all pretty much test cases, and I think some of them make these announcements just to get MS to make them really great deals, and I'm not saying it will definitely work... but when you whittle things down to what a company computer should have installed in it - office software, email clients, browsers, etc., then there's no fundamental reason why Linux shouldn't work (except that it's not MS... which is what most arguments seem to boil down to).
Since they both (Apple and the other fitness bands) require the phone to work, the answer is really yes, for all intents and purposes
By that line of reasoning, there's not much point in having a smartphone as you can get text messages on your vintage Nokia and check your email/facebook when you get home.
Uh... no... by my line of reasoning you already have to have your wristband and phone with you anyway, so it's not comparable at all.
Let your wife check messages/notifications in the rain while leaving her phone safely in her purse or pocket.
Discretely check messages/notifications in a meeting without the rudeness of digging out her phone.
Receive silent signals to turn left or right on a jog or bike ride from tactile feedback.
Granted, but what does that really have to do with fitness or overall capabilities? And why would someone pay hundreds of dollars of extras for being able to text in the rain instead of doing the smart thing and getting out of it? And are you saying your phone can't give you tactile feedback?
Since they both (Apple and the other fitness bands) require the phone to work, the answer is really yes, for all intents and purposes (since she's got the phone anyway). My problem isn't that Apple is doing it - I'm sure they'll do a great job, but that the summary author claims that's the part that caught his attention, when it's all been available elsewhere - for android OR apple users - for quite some time.
Point taken... but I guess most people don't do cardio for that long a period of time, and the bands out now are TERRIBLE accuracy, not just "a little" off.
I thought it was useless when Samsung did it, and I still think it's useless now. The only interesting benefit is for fitness tracking, which can be done with a number of smaller, less obtrusive, cheaper bands already on the market that already sync to your android or iPhone.
On the other hand, my wife and kids saw the Samsung and were like "oooh... new shiny toy!" So... they got that going for them.... all they need is a bunch of idiots with disposable income.
Personally, my doubts about wanting one were put to rest when I learned of the health-related features. Smartwatches will be able to track your movements and pulse rate, calculate how many calories you burn, and coach you continuously to improve your fitness.
You mean like fitbit, polaris, and other brands have been doing for years now? I guess it's news when Apple does it.
My wife has a polaris band she can combine with an accurate chest strap heart rate monitor, they sync together via bluetooth and her phone to track progress.... all without needing some big clunky, ugly "watch," or the premium cost for Apple products.
I disagree... stop and go traffic is worse because you actually need to pay more attention than on a relatively clear interstate - the likelihood of an accident is far greater in stop and go traffic. The difference is the severity of the accident caused when there is one. But those little fender benders during rush hour that make traffic even worse have huge financial and environmental impacts.
That said, it depends on how "stop" the stop and go traffic is. Normally in rush hour traffic, stop means for just a few seconds, then go slow, then stop for a few seconds. I was stuck in Atlanta's "snowmaggedon" earlier this year, and at two points on my drive home my car was literally stopped for 45 minutes or more. I would call and/or text my wife about conditions and just let her know I was still OK and still on my way home. Sometimes traffic is just stopped. But then that's not "stop and go."
No, don't mod parent up... just because there are too many dumb laws doesn't mean that a new one isn't good. What we should be doing is condensing laws in to more sensible ones, like "distracted driving" instead of a separate law for every way that a driver can be distracted.
I don't see it so much recently, but as life with smartphones (and earlier models that could still text) progressed, I've had arguments with a lot of younger people who were like "well you can't do it because you grew up without the technology, but we grew up being able to multitask!" I think that notion is well perceived as moronic now, but I'm willing to bet there are still quite a few people out there who think they are somehow able to divide their attention with no consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
And the only way to completely eliminate the "threat" of someone making their own guns is to then ban making anything at home, or even in a workplace without government supervision. Is that what you want?
Frankly, it doesn't matter what you should think. "Arms" doesn't mean "hunting rifles." It means "arms." It's a very broad term covering things like swords.
Is it silly to think people should be able to walk around with swords? Maybe... but then we need an ammendment to the constitution limiting what "arms" means, you can't just arbitrarily think it should mean something to everybody... and any laws that ban keeping and bearing swords violate the 2nd ammendment just as much as bans on firearms.
Ok, I'm using Unity... I click on the search, type "term," and Terminal comes up... as does UXTerm, and Xterm. "Terminal" is actually gnome-terminal. I did not have to remember the name - the search is smarter than you think. I type "calc" and get calculator... and LibreOffice Calc. I type "disk" when I don't feel like manually entering the commands to mount a partition (or forget how). I get "disks," which is what I'm looking for, as well as disk usage calculator and startup disk creator. Nothing unusual to remember.
I disagree... I'm not a huge Unity fan, but the search tool is very simple and generic way to find ANYTHING that's installed very simply, then you can pin it to the sidebar or put a link on your desktop if it's something you use a lot.
No, you find it once and pin it to the side bar for one click access. I'm not understanding all the brain dead responses - you find it using the thing that lets you find anything, which might take a few extra moments, but it's nice because it's generic; then when you find something you will use a lot, pin it to the side bar for one click access. I don't get why people enjoy complaining about stuff like this.
How many people are actually going to want it?
I use the terminal every day... so I open the search, find the terminal I want... AND THEN PIN IT TO THE SIDE BAR, because it's something I use a lot. If I don't use it a lot, it doesn't need to be that easy to get to.
I agree... people I talk to at work (decidedly NOT geeks; I'm the lone computer programmer) mostly don't like the show. They call it a show about smart people for dumb people. I guess, in a way, all sitcoms are for dumb people... smart people would be doing something better with their time, but I digress. IMO it's not a show "about" smart people, it's a show about social interactions among really quirky people. The science has very little to do with the show at all... it's an aside; a part of the setting, not the main point.
Well... I think what makes a show interesting is the quirky personalities of the characters. If they were "normal," it would be a pretty boring show. On top of that, many of the other scientists they meet on the show, including other faculty (Kripke excepted), are "normal." The deans and school presidents have been "normal." The Leslie character is pretty normal, all things considered. They had episodes where outside scientists came to visit, and despite the voracious sexual appetite (Dr. Plimpton), and another "Dr. Underhill," who was a handsome, "adventurous" motorcycle riding "stud" that Penny fell for (although he ends up being a jerk), they were pretty "normal."
I often find myself watching all sorts of fiction getting frustrated how stupidly people act in given situations... but if they didn't, it would be pretty boring.
I can't predict what would happen, but your last statement is what I've been looking for in all this mess... in the short term, things like this are almost always painful, there's a lot of readjusting to do, but it's what happens in the long term that matters. I would applaud Scotland's secession as long overdue and, yes, as an American, believe that freedom and independence are just as important (if not more) than financial security.
I agree... even 5 or 6 years ago, my father was visiting and asked to use my computer to check some things online... he sat down, ran the browser (Firefox at the time, which looks like the Firefox he has installed on Windows); he had to print out some PDFs he'd created that had his travel documents (hotel reservations and stuff), plugged it in, the window opened, he double clicked - they opened, he printed. Later I asked what he thought about using Linux, he said he didn't realize it wasn't Windows.
Of course, that's a simple example - he didn't do anything complicated, just double-clicked the Firefox icon and everything else was the same user experience, double-clicked some PDFs and the UX was the same... but while there are of course differences, anyone that can use MS Office could probably figure out Open/LibreOffice with little effort for all but pathalogical special cases.
Ubuntu user here... unless I'm installing something really odd (which, if you work for some municipality you probably shouldn't be doing on your work computer), software installation is just as easy - sometimes easier - than using Windows. The days of downloading something that won't install because of missing dependencies, so you download them and they won't install because of missing dependencies.... etc., etc., is long gone with pretty much every distribution.
Don't know how this will turn out, of course, they are all pretty much test cases, and I think some of them make these announcements just to get MS to make them really great deals, and I'm not saying it will definitely work... but when you whittle things down to what a company computer should have installed in it - office software, email clients, browsers, etc., then there's no fundamental reason why Linux shouldn't work (except that it's not MS... which is what most arguments seem to boil down to).
By that line of reasoning, there's not much point in having a smartphone as you can get text messages on your vintage Nokia and check your email/facebook when you get home.
Uh... no... by my line of reasoning you already have to have your wristband and phone with you anyway, so it's not comparable at all.
Since they both (Apple and the other fitness bands) require the phone to work, the answer is really yes, for all intents and purposes (since she's got the phone anyway). My problem isn't that Apple is doing it - I'm sure they'll do a great job, but that the summary author claims that's the part that caught his attention, when it's all been available elsewhere - for android OR apple users - for quite some time.
Point taken... but I guess most people don't do cardio for that long a period of time, and the bands out now are TERRIBLE accuracy, not just "a little" off.
Yeah... my Timex already does that.... and for a lot less.
How about an alert that tells you exactly when the watch goes out of style?
D'oh! Too late.
I understand your plight (and glad you weren't actually dead on impact); it was just that wording that I found amusing.
But your problem isn't amusing, and certainly that guy should have been severely punished. It sounds like a travesty of justice.
So what you want to do is ban guns because of the TINY, ITTY BITTY fraction that were gun "sprees?"
Cops should have always on wearable cameras and tech that wirelessly streams to servers. Who watches the watchers? We should all be watching.
I thought it was useless when Samsung did it, and I still think it's useless now. The only interesting benefit is for fitness tracking, which can be done with a number of smaller, less obtrusive, cheaper bands already on the market that already sync to your android or iPhone.
On the other hand, my wife and kids saw the Samsung and were like "oooh... new shiny toy!" So... they got that going for them.... all they need is a bunch of idiots with disposable income.
Personally, my doubts about wanting one were put to rest when I learned of the health-related features. Smartwatches will be able to track your movements and pulse rate, calculate how many calories you burn, and coach you continuously to improve your fitness.
You mean like fitbit, polaris, and other brands have been doing for years now? I guess it's news when Apple does it.
My wife has a polaris band she can combine with an accurate chest strap heart rate monitor, they sync together via bluetooth and her phone to track progress.... all without needing some big clunky, ugly "watch," or the premium cost for Apple products.
I disagree... stop and go traffic is worse because you actually need to pay more attention than on a relatively clear interstate - the likelihood of an accident is far greater in stop and go traffic. The difference is the severity of the accident caused when there is one. But those little fender benders during rush hour that make traffic even worse have huge financial and environmental impacts.
That said, it depends on how "stop" the stop and go traffic is. Normally in rush hour traffic, stop means for just a few seconds, then go slow, then stop for a few seconds. I was stuck in Atlanta's "snowmaggedon" earlier this year, and at two points on my drive home my car was literally stopped for 45 minutes or more. I would call and/or text my wife about conditions and just let her know I was still OK and still on my way home. Sometimes traffic is just stopped. But then that's not "stop and go."
No, don't mod parent up... just because there are too many dumb laws doesn't mean that a new one isn't good. What we should be doing is condensing laws in to more sensible ones, like "distracted driving" instead of a separate law for every way that a driver can be distracted.
I don't see it so much recently, but as life with smartphones (and earlier models that could still text) progressed, I've had arguments with a lot of younger people who were like "well you can't do it because you grew up without the technology, but we grew up being able to multitask!" I think that notion is well perceived as moronic now, but I'm willing to bet there are still quite a few people out there who think they are somehow able to divide their attention with no consequences.
I get what you're saying, but laughing about the way you said it... "and I'm dead on impact." ... "temporarily depriving me of life..."
Are you writing on slashdot from the grave, telling a true story, or just making something up?