Creator of many awesome computer games - Chaos, Rebelstar, X-Com.
Check out Chaos Reborn, his latest project.
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Creator of many awesome computer games - Chaos, Rebelstar, X-Com.
Check out Chaos Reborn, his latest project.
Because moderation is supposed to be for highlighting posts that contribute to the discussion, not for whether we agree with or disagree with posts.
Also, this post you like by an anonymous coward is suggesting a war against Islam. There are more than 1.5 billion muslims in the world; presumably the poster wants them all shot?
Well, Iraq was pushed to collapse. That did not go so well.
What do you mean? The country was then conquered within months by us. Saddam Hussein himself was then captured, tried publicly, and executed deservingly.
There were over a million deaths by some estimates caused by the invasion. A million! Even if the estimates are off by half, that's an incredible number of people.
Iraq is still in chaos many years later. IS has taken over a lot of the country. The Middle East as a whole was destabilised and has yet to recover.
I'd hate to know what your definition of a catastrophe is.
I wasn't commenting on the motives of the western countries, nor whether atrocities have been carried out by the rebels (it appears they have, though not on the scale that Assad has). I was replying to the OP who seemed to think the reporting in Syria was all propaganda. The coverage in the media seems to have been reasonably balanced, reporting the abuses of both sides. There has not been the dramatic attempts to control the media by e.g. the US and UK governments that we saw in the Iraq war.
I've been to Syria recently -- well in the last couple of years, after the start of the revolution. I experienced first hand the extreme corruption, the ever-present secret police, and the aura of fear and intimidation.
Just because some of the information coming out of the country is untrue (how could you not expect some of it to be?) doesn't mean the current state of Syria is propaganda. Most of the reporting is true; the alternative is that every major news organisation, charity and most governments (bar Russia and Iran) are part of some vast conspiracy.
Yes, but the point is, a pig is not one of the top intellectual hitters by any measure. It's reasonably smart but it doesn't get close to, say, an orang. Claiming it is the third smartest species after humans is just plain wrong.
The mirror test is just one test of animal intelligence amongst many.
But it's probably the most important.
Different animals have different strengths in their intelligence, as one would expect - the intellect of each has evolved for different environments.
This is why I said the order is up for debate.
Sorry. Different intelligence tests are correlated so being good at one tends to make you good at another. Humans are unambiguously the smartest and can outwit any other species at practically anything. Chimps/bonobos are next. Although you can quibble about where a particular species is placed, there's certain generalities you can assert.
My list is commonly accepted, but by no means absolute.
No serious researcher in animal intelligence that I know of puts pigs in the top four most intelligent species. Feel free to provide a reference.
Why is thinking a necessary criterion for suffering?
Consciousness is a necessary requirement for suffering. If an entity can't experience something then it can't suffer from that experience. We can demonstrate this because consciousness is easily disrupted in humans by relatively simple chemicals. Anaesthetised humans do not suffer, even during what would otherwise be traumatic experiences such as medical operations.
But the top 3 animals for intelligence after man are the dolphin, the chimp and the pig
Well this isn't true. There's a few species that pass the mirror test, which is about the highest non-subjective test for intelligence in other species we have. Pigs don't pass the mirror test.
So I'd rank humans, the other great apes (chimps/bonobos, orangs, gorillas), dolphins, orcas and elephants ahead of pigs, and probably other animals too.
If pigs did pass the mirror test I wouldn't eat them (actually I tend to avoid eating pigs anyway because we tend to keep them in such terrible conditions).
Agreeing with the poster but pointing out that "proof" is very difficult to come by is "hand-waving"? Sorry, you'll have to explain your thinking on that one.
It seems that Assad has indeed been using chemical weapons over the past year, and without any comeback.
1. There is no proof regime used chemical weapons.
No. But "proof" that will satisfy everyone is very hard to come by.
2. Why would regime use chemical weapons ? They're "winning" already..
I think you've answered your own question there with your use of quotes. The regime are looking at the thin end of a potentially multi-decade civil war. There's no prospect of a decisive victory in the forseeable future.
3. Why would regime use chemical weapons ? The rulling party there is NOT stupid, whatever you may think of them. You think they wouldn't know it would come to this (worldwide condemnation) ?
The regime has been torturing kids to death for years with little comeback. It has already achieved worldwide condemnation. The Assad family doesn't care. The only risk to them is military intervention by a superior power but after 100k+ deaths and years of atrocities they don't believe anyone will intervene.
They were quite good friends of many Western countries until quite recently. The US used to give them prisoners to "interrogate". Even after years of brutal repression with much video evidence there are plenty of people on the internet who believe Assad and friends are the good guys.
4. The ruling party have majority of peoples votes. Why would they undermine that ?
Elections in Syria are meaningless charades, of minor use to the regime as a rubber-stamp only.
5. Why would they allow UN to come inspect the site then shoot at them ?
It doesn't seem to be in either the rebel's or the regime's interests to shoot at the UN. It seems likely that this was an error by one group or another.
It seems entirely plausible and in character for the regime to use chemical weapons. They have the stocks and a history of being willing to use extreme brutality.
The idea that the rebels have launched the attack in an attempt to blame the regime is somewhat plausible. They are desperate enough and some of their elements seem to be capable of acts of harshness approaching that of the regime. However the attacks were in rebel-held areas and there is no evidence of the rebels gaining any chemical weapons.
I think it's rather more likely that the regime made the attacks based on past history and circumstantial evidence, but we don't have very much in the way of proof either way.
It is not proven that Gnome3's or Unity's approach is perfect yet.
To say the least. But I've tried both for a few weeks each and they definitely make me less productive than Gnome 2.
However, the problems of the taskbar/windowlist is, that they are grouped by no order at all. Minimizing a window leaves no trail where to find it again, except the 0.3 second animation with shrinkboxes or some compiz effect. Users might remember that for some time, but not much.
You can see at a glance which windows are open by their icon (which admittedly only shows the program, not document), title, and you have a good cue of which window is which from its position (rightmost is most recently opened). There may be a better solution but this is excellent in minimising number of clicks (everything is one click away) and quite good on impact on short-term memory (not much demand to remember which windows are open).
Gnome 3's approach: When there is no way to minimize a window, it keeps its position. Keeping positions of objects is a powerful cognitive concept that Windows and KDE seem to have completely dismissed.
This pretty much fails when you have overlapping windows. It doesn't help that a window keeps its position if I can't see it. I find it's also useful to minimise a window to reduce visual distraction. I find in Gnome 3 I waste lots of effort manually shuffling my windows around so I can either hide them or so they're slightly overlapping so I can click on them without putting my cursor into the corner. Surely the opposite to what was intended.
And after pressing the funky key, users can see all the windows, not-overlapping, from a bird's-eye view and select much larger surfaces to access them. That is actually much more "efficient" that scanning a list of minimized windows
It's less efficient in the sense you have to click somewhere or press a key or move your mouse to see the windows. Changing mode to change windows and having all those windows flying around I find is more distraction to my workflow. Maybe our brains work differently? I'd be happy to have both options however as sometimes an expose-style window map is useful if you've "lost" a window.
Another good idea in Gnome3 is creating virtual desktops semantically instead of having a fixed number of them.
I think this is potentially a good idea that needs more polish. In Gnome 2 I can click on the desktop I want with one click from the taskbar but in Gnome Shell I need to go into the separate mode.
I think a lot more can be done with virtual desktops. It would be nice for example to have one project per desktop and then to be able to save that desktop (open programs, views, files) as a project, close it, and be able to reopen it at a later date, link it to a to-do list, etc.
Not directed against you, MrNiCeGUi: many people claiming to be "power users" and needing a lot of config options, are in fact wasting time and are just feeling to be productive by staring at pointless data diagrams or actually designing their own UI by moving stuff around, very likely making it measurably less efficient.
I agree to the extent that you can make something too configurable. Too many options make it hard to find what you want to change, make things too easy to break, too hard to test. However, you can also make things not configurable enough. People's brains work differently so like to work in a different way, people have different hardware and software setups (e.g. number of displays), and work on vastly different projects. I think Gnome 3 shell and Unity have gone significantly into the "too little configurability" camp. Gnome 2 was a very good balance by contrast.
You conveniently ignore the risk reward part of this. Fermat's Last Theorem is not deciding major public policy. Unless you are severely retarded, you can do the math to empirically show that it is true. Maybe I am just smarter than you, but *I* don't just take math experts word for Fermat's Last Theorem. I have run the numbers myself, and found the theorem to be more likely true than not via my own independent calculations.
You can't prove Fermat's last Theorem empirically because it claims to be valid for all integers. You could only disprove it that way. The idea you can prove it statistically is pure comedy; no matter how many tests you run, there are infinitely more numbers you haven't tested, so your confidence in your result is still 0. You need a formal proof; however, the proof found is very complex and only absolutely top maths experts could get their head around it.
I have a PhD myself and have some modest scientific advances to my credit and while I don't claim to be the smartest person around, I'm better than most and I know more about science than the vast majority of the general population. I'm pretty good at maths but I haven't a hope of beginning to understand the proof without years of study. Even if I did commit myself to that, that's only one field out of thousands. You can't hope to be an expert in them all. You have to trust the experts in fields you haven't mastered. It's what human civilisation is built on.
Do you research materials science before climbing a tall building? Make sure you're satisfied with aeronautics before flying in an aeroplane? Life would be impossible.
You seem to think you have enough knowledge to challenge the experts in an advanced scientific field whereas (as you've demonstrated in this thread) your knowledge of the subject is as superficial as your knowledge of maths and logic. Sheer arrogance.
You can't say that there are no major cracks in the theory when you don't understand what is being said.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can. I don't understand the solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but the maths experts tell me that it works so I accept that it's true.
We also are not talking about a doctor who has no political reason to lie to you.
I think you'd have to be pretty paranoid to think your doctor was lying to you. And then absolutely certifiably insane to think that 98% of doctors were simultaneously making up cancer diagnoses in order to secure more ontology research funding.
These people are predicting the end of human civilization.
No. No, they're not. You obviously are getting your news filtered through some crazy right wing news service, not from the scientists. So you're not even arguing against what is actually being predicted. Please, educate yourself, and not through Fox news.
Using other people's knowledge is a risk. To rationally use them, you have to weight the risk reward of taking their word for it vs. doing the research yourself.
Yes, you can either do the research yourself and become and expert (which you clearly haven't) or you can accept the experts' explanation.
And if you determine that they are in fact correct, then you would be a sociopath to do anything less that join with bands of like minded people to destroy every carbon producing facility you can get anywhere near.
This all rests on the premise that the prediction is for the end of human civilisation, which isn't the case. Even it was, there would be more attractive options than suddenly destroying all our power sources, like gradually switching to nuclear.
Right, it's been fun but I'm bored now. You clearly have a very tenuous grasp of reality.
switcher as well,
If you mean the workspace switcher, I think it's a train wreck. Instead of one click to change workspaces, it's two (one double click). And why is there no visual indication of which workspace you're on, like in the Gnome 2 switcher? Come on! That's surely not hard to program. I assumed this was a bug that would get fixed in 11.10 but apparently not. Fine, someone made a really stupid UI decision but THEN you can't even remove the switcher because someone decided that I wasn't allowed to do that in case I confused myself. Aargh! A minor thing, but a good summary of Unity: bad UI decisions which are then locked down so you're not allowed to change them.
What do people who constantly rag on Unity want?
A taskbar. I've tried Gnome 3 and Unity for a few weeks each and the fact is that I'm significantly more productive with a taskbar. It's just the way my brain works, it doesn't like "modal" applications like the unity Dash/sidebar or the Gnome 3 thingy (I don't like vi either).
To downgrade the human mind is bad theology. - C. K. Chesterton