...about layout that is fluid/elastic? What makes it on par with aerospace engineering? IT ISN'T THAT HARD! It is not that much to ask for really! Using browser's full width has been done successfully on /. for many years now--what is with this throwback to fixed width that leaves 50% of my maximised browser window blank? I to NOT want to party like it's 1999!

Leave the shiney-chromey left and right columns fixed for all I care, but PLEASE--push them to the EDGES and use the flexible space for the main content.

I do like the updated style/presentation, I am not looking for the site to do ALL the thinking for me--the ONLY thing I am really wanting is a website that uses the width of my browser! The existing/old site does this already so it CANT BE THAT HARD. In my opinion that ONE thing would transform the beta site from one I'd spend minimal time on to one that would be my home page. HONESTLY.

There is some confusion about what is a GNOME-based application and what is part of the GNOME environment itself.

For example Shotwell is a third-party GNOME based application. It has never been part of the GNOME project--not a GNOME component. Rather, it has merely been the most commonly used app for photo management and viewing as packaged by distributions. Shotwell supplanted F-Spot becaus the latter was built with .NET/Mono and many had concerns about potential MSFT-interference.

GNOME did not have final say on either F-Spot OR Shotwell given they weren't GNOME desktop components--just apps designed to work on GNOME. Until now there WAS no official default app. Now there is:: GNOME Photos.

As such, I expect that GNOME Photos, Music, Notes, Maps, etc. will continue for the long term as the "defaults" as they are new official GNOME components. Furthermore I suspect Shotwell, Rythmbox, etc will continue on as alternatives, likely with some enhanced capabilites, different feature sets, etc. just as WEB (aka epiphany) is the "official" GNOME browser client it is still commonly (or even normally) supplanted by a 3rd party browser.

On my PC running GNOME 3.8 resuming from lock screen is instantaneous. You have something wrong with your system.

I suspend by closing my laptop lid--not tried any other way but that works.

I have a sandy-bridge qaud core i7 with 16 gigs ram...pretty good spec but not what as good as you have and I can tell you there is no lag to speak of. Boots fast, everything responds instantly. And that is running my Radeon card on LOW POWER (slow) profile mode. Are you sure you have it installed right? Video driver issues maybe? Something hoging CPU?

How much crap do you have in you top bar if your clock is cut off. Your calendar takes 2-5 seconds to come up? WTF? Mine comes up in MILLIseconds.

Either you are BSing us all or you have wider system issues. This is NOT what I've seen with GNOME3. Even a several-years-old single Core 2 desktop with Intel 4500 integrated graphics and far less RAM I have can do better at it!

But I *DO* repect your opinion. You don't like GNOME, that is fine. You've stated reasons why you don't like GNOME. That is great. That is on topic, even if I don't entirely agree (though GNOME 3 *does* have room for improvement).

That said, "GNOME 3 sucks I use MATE" and then going on to expound about how wonderfully traditional MATE is is OFF TOPIC. The article is about the release of GNOME 3. Unless you are going to make some observation about GNOME 3 beyond a one line "sucks" comment then said comment is very deservedly modded into oblivion.

We've heard it all before. It is a broken record, it is a dead horse that people just can't stop beating. If you must be critical be constructive and be a bit specific about what needs improvement. We do NOT need to hear "GNOME 3 sucks". That is less than useless. Go away and let *intelligent* critics have some input (I would even put up with Torvalds or DeRaadt style profanity laden rants so long as they have meaningful point to them).

You know, I remember, many years ago now, an article that got posted on /. about usability of the Linux desktop for casual/beginner/"regualr people" users. GNOME and KDE were examined. At the time Gnome 2.x was fairly new.

One of the prominent complaints (one that got MSFT and AAPL fanbois gloating) was how people struggled with the exotic names for everyday applications.

So...you have to click this GIMP thingy to edit pictures? To go ont he web you need to clock "Konqueror" or "Galeon" (the latter of which morphed into "Epiphany"--so much more clear what it does eh?). To burn a CD I need "Brasero", etc.

The user had to rely on icons--sometimes they were not so useful either.

So the GNOME people have finally done something about it and name the app that helps you install software "Software", and call the web browser "web" instead of "Epihpany"...makes sense considering the feedback right? Well, now they are being mocked by experienced users for the unimaginative names. It's not like a computer literate person can't figure out what "WEB" does (oh gee, that must be the GNOME web browser...well isn't that more boring than Epiphany, but I guess now Aunt Martha will know how to get on the web).

By the way--"WEB" is just Epiphany renamed--the GNOM browser. Firefox/Iceweasel or Chromium still appear with their respective names/icons, so you can relax unlessyou are among the 1% of GNOME users who just use the GNOME Web browser and nothing else.

(As I type this I use GNOME 3.8 from Debian unstable and experimental packages--'tis a great improvement over 3.4 and earlier that so many still use or base their first impressions on--hopefully 3.10 will be packaged for Debian in due time--pwehaps a couple weeks before 3.12 comes out ;-)

ERP software is not an out of box application. It is a development platform for creating line of business apps. It should be treated like a web app framework. It provides a user interface and workflow engine along with a set of modules that you can implement on top to provide accounting, inventory control, and other business functions. But it has to be programmed, and you also may have to modify your business procedures to better work within the confines of the framework as well.

Perhaps that is why do many implementations fail. ERP is sold as off the shelf or ready made. It is not. You must go through a proper software dev lifecycle and PROGRAM an ERP as if it was a fancy visual studio for business. ERP merely saves time by providing the framework...the boilerplate code...vs. from scratch. So it should be devoted the appropriate time and resources regardless of how you have to feed the data in from a legacy system etc.

OpenERP has issues that you might not want to deal with. Some technical like using floats where decimals should be for example, and some political, similar to what SQL Ledger went through (OpenERP is commercially backed and some fundamental needs as well as developer/integrator participation requires $$$). The real pain point is that it has no supported upgrade path between major releases, and the people who run the project actively interfere with community efforts to provide upgrade tools that are open. Upgrading seems to be seen as a primary part of their business model.

Tryton is a fork of OpenERP community edition managed by a nonprofit group of developer-users. It's code base has diverged a fair bit by now and is much more solid, and I've been able to upgrade between releases without the hassle as testing and migration abilities are considered important core priorities.

Might be worth considering...

The energy to pump the CO2 into the ground isn't wasted. The force of pushing it down a well displaces residual oil and gas and allows more petroleum to be extracted from each well. Once liquid fluids have done the fracturing the CO2 can perform some degree of enhanced oil recovery.

It could potentially reduce the carbon footprint of so called dirty American and Canadian petroleum, reduce consumption of toxic fracking fluids etc. We already push natural gas, steam, nitrogen and all sorts of stuff into the ground to help get petroleum out

The question does not have enough detail to make ultimate judgments on the approach they attempted, but what is there suggests what mistakes they made.

Firstly you don't have to yel at the m SUPPORT! Well duh, that is the first thing anyone would think (including these people as well). Purchase a support contract is obvious.

Which brings me to the other point you seemed to miss completely--that this budget surplus of $20,000 had to be "spent" AND PRODUCTS/SERVICES RENDERED within the fiscal year, which was only 4 weeks or less by the time the offers went out! I think is is quite possible that making out four $5000 invoices for just a couple WEEKS of a support contract and making it look legitimate could be a challenge without some legitimate record of services or products delivered over that short period (where are the transmittals? Reports? Bills of Lading? Meeting minutes? Receipts for expenses?). To make it unsuspicious would require some degree of fabrication (inventing face documents, back-dating, etc), and then you are in murky ethical territory.

So, making a superficial post without giving even cursory thought to what was in TFA, then b!tching about the decline in the quality of discussion of others despite the lack of effort put in by yourself, I think you've been rightfully down-modded.
 

--too much BS.

transparency != complexity. Having relatives who worked in the DND I know that it is mostly about bureaucratic inertia at best and NOT being fair at worst.

Having to follow public tender rules designed to manage huge projects for purchasing hand tools, power cords, and other sundry items is not reasonable nor is it expected. It is done because of the culture of the organisation, and sometimes to REDUCE transparency. The rules do NOT say such illogical accounting procedures that average out costs like that are mandatory. in fact the strategy in that environment is chosen to REDUCE transparency. You sign a big huge contract then single source all under that one party and do the LEAST amount of breakdown as required by law. Sometimes it is done to hide shenanigans, other times it is because of "national security" (legitimately). Then some wag asks "wow your tools budget is huge--what does a hammer cost" but there is no accounting for individual tools, so some bean counter is assigned to pull a number out of his butt (hmmm..inventory control shows 'x' hammers added, sum('quantity')='y' and total dollars spent was 'z' so hammercost=z*x/y ... hmmm that is $20k...oh well it's a number and they wanted a number so there it is). But it isn't really--they just fill out a req form for some hammers then send it to purchasing then hammers arrive...and no money or invoices or anything passes hands until the end of a fiscal period, so that is all they have to go on.

Again, it is quite the opposite of "transparent" and "fair"--it is all about "minimum compliance"...follow the law to the letter and do no more, because the more detail is available the more questions get asked. The only thing that makes it "fair" is that the rules are the same for all (the fact the rules are stupid and unworkable for many matters not).

...because I cannot figure any other reason you would thing such a practice is "ttotally normal". It does happen, it is on the fuzzy legal line where it probably wouldn't result in legal trouble yes. However, this is FAR from "totally normal".

The spending pattern you talk about *IS* a common situation, though in my experience it is mostly what happens in public institutions or perhaps a few of the largest of corporations in departments that are "revenue sinks" rather than "revenue generators". That is because of the budget cultire. Managers are compensated and their departments staffed based on a budget handed down in a political process. Such operations are not profit driven--the goal is to reach a "zero balance". Chronic deficit spending can be politically harmful, but chronic UNDERspending makes you a target for budget cutbacks--it is perverse but that is what happens--there is no incentive for efficiency in such an operation (and is why socialised industries without private competition are notoriously bureaucratic and inefficient).

In Canada political pundits call this "March Madness" because that is the fiscal year end, when federal government offices that are in surplus spend like drunken sailors, whilst at the same time politicians grandstand and court lobbyists and so forth at the same time. Until the Great Recession started it really was madness, becasue the whole government had been operating in surplus for many years and every department tried to maximise their spending to motivate expansion of their budgets. Now with a few years of deficits they've sobered up a bit, but the motivation to spend all allocations is still there to try and defend against cutbacks.

What is NOT commonplace at all these days is a trumped up "purchase" of imaginary products or services because if the Auditor General finds such items it could (and has) become a political mess--this is exactly what happened in the "sponsorship scandal" in Canada, where the federal government earmarked many millions of dollars to campaigning against a vote in Quebec to secede from Canada. a very large portion of that money was not spent on "real" materials and services, so government officials "bought" fake marketing services--worst of all the "supppliers" of those fake services were mostly supporters of the ruling Liberal party of the day who in turn made nice donations to the party ini the following elections (essentially funneling taxpayer revenue into the political party).

Since that scandal the government has been under a microscope over questionable purchases--no matter what the scale. Presently there is a bit of a scandal over expenses filed by Senate members--and though it is literally about %1 the size of the sponsorship scandal it has been very damaging politically. Now, say that a gov't department approached you unsolicited and said "here is $5000--you don't need to do anything but send us an invoice" would it not cause you to pause? Even if they wanted nothing else what would happn if it surfaced? Would you want to be associated with an unethical scheme of this nature? What if you had donated to the ruling party in the past personally? Optics of that are terrible.

I'd have to say that I woud not take this kind of "money for nothing" for just such a reason, whether it was from a gov't department or a corporate windfall. It may not be obviously illegal but it is ethically dubious and bad optics--enough to raise red flags in an audit. I would want no part of that.

There is another problem with this as well not even related to the above. If these project maintainers get money in exchange for an invoice for any reason it cannot be a "donation" or "gift" on the books--and that has significant tax implications especially if the FOSS project is a registered foundation or simply a personal project. In such cases unless proper services can be delivered and the amount is large enough it may be less trouble financially or legally to accept a "donation" in the form of a fake invoice. And in this case the amount is $5000 which really does not qualify.

My advice to the donor is to plan ahead more and to research the nature of the FOSS project more. It is certainly a noble gesture to donate $20k to FOSS projects but tryig to throw money around at the last minute is a poor approach. Is the software maintained by a non-profit foundation? In that case you have to make it a PROPER donation, for which a tax writeoff may still apply. Is it a corporation or indifidual that maintains a FOSS project, then draw up a contract at the START of the fiscal year and accept consulting invoices and make an effort of actually USING their services! That is more above-board, and approaching them like that instead of saying "if you give us an invoice we will wire you $5000! but hurry we need to get rid of this money in 3 weeks!" is far less likely to get you put into the spam filter.

Everyone on both sides of the debate includes the energy and emissions from power plants that make the electricity for EVs. What very few people take into account is the energy used to manufacture each vehicle.

Hybrids and full electric vehicles require much more energy and resources to build...the environmental impact of the use of rare earths and toxic chemicals for the battery and extra electronics is substantial. A Prius takes so much more energy to make than a Hummer H2 did that a new Prius owner doesn't break even for almost 3 years...so don't lease a Prius every 3 years because you are basically doing the same ad driving a Hummer!

After that period the Prius pulls ahead rapidly though...so keep it at least 5 years or buy a used one if you care about saving energy. Better yet buy a small diesel ... the VW Golf diesel is probably the "greenest" automobile you can buy in America at least (can you still get a diesel Smart car anywhere?). Such cars are both energy efficient to run and require less energy to build.

It is evident you don't know the psycology of a rapist, or indeed most criminals.

Most rapists, in particular, seek to exert power and control over their victim. The best way to assure success is to target the most vulnerable, because rapists are cowardly and are afraid of failing to obtain that control and power (often they lack power and control in other aspects of their life and are loathe to face that failure when they don't have to).

Rapes are virtually unheard of in public places--they happen at night or in secluded places--the chance of an innocent bystander being caught in crossfire is basically nil in those cases.

Rapists don't tend to be gun enthusiasts--they may brandish a gun or a weapon when they commit the offense but the purpose is to intimidate and control; they generally lack the courage to discharge the weapon. A dead victim can no longer be threatened or intimidated, and if they've gone and shot their victim they've lost control of the situation. If a potential victim were to pull a gun in the vast majority of cases they would flee, not fire back. If the odds are against the attacker they will flee. Rapists who are armed almost NEVER approach with a gun drawn--they will only brandish the weapon when they are very close.

The studies cited about an increase in violent rapes and assults in Australia is not really surprising at all knowing this--it isn't specific to Australia's society--though different societies would respond differently to changes in criminal laws all rapists share some common traits, and the more confident a rapist can be that a victim is defenceless the more likely they will attempt the crime.

The kind of situations you describe, where victims have their weapons used against them or are bysanders caught in crossfire, mostly happen as a result of organised crime or street gang activity. The target and the perpetrator are both criminals, and both are probably armed with illegally obtained weapons, and the motivation is not control or personal gain (like robbery--motive is to obtain something of value not to kill). Gang members kill each other out of revenge--to settle a score. Such people wouldn't go through the bother of using a 3d printer--they have their sources of illicit weapons already.

The most visible, but most rare as well, victims of gun violence are those of the emotionally disturbed, generally suicidal deviants. They are very rare cases actually, and if a bystander was to fire back the situation is proabably already exceeedingly dangerous already.

Gun control is treating a symtom generally--it is not very effective. Cun-making-control even less so. Treating the causes would work better but is more difficult and less politically expedient. Those causes are many and range from urban blight/decay to public school systems/modern "self-esteem based" teaching philosophies that foster sociopathic behaviour in children to family breakdown to lack of comunity resources to help raise children (and as a result are lured by gangs). Gun violence is a complex problem with no single easy answer. Unfortunately the media advocates quick, easy answers and people demand them, and ultimately laws are crafted on that basis.

Not having suffered as a victim of violent crime I cannot say for sure, but having known a victim ov violent sexual assult, I would say that many of them feel they would rather have been murdered, especally quickly with a gun, because the pain and suffering would be over much sooner.

Furthermore, if a rapist is fatally shot then not only could the victim have aat least a chance to avoid the rape itself, they could also avoid the prospect of facing their attacker in court during trial, appeals, victim impact statements, parole hearings, release from prison, being stalked via phone and email, etc.

So, the answer to the question is not so obvious.

Well you can never say never...we certainly could run out of economically viable fossil fuels. Big elephant in the room in his argument is that he doesn't say when. That is because nobody really does know when peak oil will happen and everybody who has ever hazarded a guess has been completely wrong.

I won't hazard a guess when we would hit a wall...but it is absolutely fact that even with factoring in large growth in demand that other is well over a century..maybe two..before we hit a wall in terms of supply.

Anyone who does not accept the fact that even when our great grandchildren are senior citizens there will be enough oil and gas for everyone is deluded...just as deluded as those who think we can burn.it all with no effect on the climate or environment are deluded.

That is why all the experts of today harp on about CO2 emissions and caps and climate. The old argument about turning your thermostat down and driving less because the oil will out that we had before was flat out wrong..the climate argument is much more convincing.

Nonetheless there is still a peak oil strategy too. The whole anti-pipeline lobby is about that. The whole think about the chance of leaks etc. Is a sham..a distraction because the risk of a serious incident is extremely small. In fact the possibility of something as bad as Exxon Valdez or deepwater horizon is pretty much impossible with pipelines. The real reason for filibustering pipeline approvals is to create "artificial peak oil"...to make sure Athabasca oil sands and Bakken shale oil and tight oil and gas fields stay uneconomical when they don't have to be...unconventional oil is in fact profitable to produce at not much more than half WTI spot. The limiting factor is transport not production with today's tech and the visible environmental effects are quite benign (3/4 of bitumen reserves in Athabasca are too far down to mine and are recovered or will be recovered in-situ...no big ugly black pits and up grader smokestacks and such and the cost.and energy differential compared to conventional oil is shrinking rapidly.

In any case I am not saying that it is OK to burn oil and gas all we want...we certainly should examine alternative energy and even more importantly focus on conservation and efficiency. However the anti pipeline and peak oil crowd are being intellectually dishonest and I find that quite sinister. I don't know the whole solution but it isn't ethical to be manipulative and misleading with the facts as this particular environmental lobby is being. There is something to be said for being reliant on energy that doesn't have to be sucked out of the ocean floor or floated across the ocean on leaky tankers from nations ruled by maniacal dictators who hate us and abuse their citizens.

In the meantime perhaps we can have our governments encourage both domestic oil and gas production and transportation properly done AND conservation efforts...perhaps making investment in the latter a condition for industry to do the former.

Lastly another little thought to ponder...perhaps it hasn't occurred to many yet...but maybe climate change is not only a fact but that we've already pushed ourselves over the tipping point...that nature has already established positive feedback loops of its own and that even if Humans suddenly vanished that the climate change that started with us would continue for centuries to come?

Just like the thought that oil might not run out the thought that climate change is now unavoidable would ruin lobbying efforts to reduce consumption...it is dangerous thought perhaps but probably another inconvenient truth that we have to face...adapt or perish.