I'll bite. What would you do to make it shorter? That seems pretty sane to me. I'm assuming the language's methods are determined by the signature. There's not that much (maybe the []) you could remove and still determine what is being passed in.
I understand that it's different than synpatic, but it is indeed in Debian. It's just simply been re-branded as "Debian Software Center".
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?package=software-center
Gotcha, I don't follow Ubuntu so I wasn't aware of the change. That software also comes with Debian as well.
I guess if you have a team who are going to have lots of questions because they aren't totally clear on what they're doing, stuffing them all in a room is a good idea. A well thought out and documented project plan would alleviate a lot of those problems though. I can imagine a room with 10 developers who can shout questions to each other would create an amazingly high amount of unwanted distractions.
I like some of the other posters suggestions of having a conference room type environment where people can meet to discuss things. I'm in a cubicle environment, so I can second that having loud people (aka my boss) shouting in the room can be distracting.*
* There has been times when overhearing conversations is good. Sometimes people are discussing a procedure/bug/system that you're aware of and can help guide them. Or if they're discussing something that will effect you. Having people in offices, you lose that but I don't think the advantages out-weigh the disadvantages of a cubicle setting.
You mean synaptic? It's available on Debian as well as Ubuntu.
if you keep waiting you end up with Debian that has delays longer than Ubuntu has between (non-LTS) releases.
I guess I could try one of the non-Debian based distros but my experiences with them have all been bad, worse than anything Ubuntu ever managed to do to Debian. Unless there are really bad deal breakers, I'd rather they get it out there and start the people on and the bugs filed while upstream might still bother to fix them. But yeah, backing up and being able to roll back to the last version is very much an advantage..
It sounds like you're more familiar with Debian's stable releases. I find that Debian testing is a pretty good balance between "stability" and "newness of software". I don't know if that would be something to consider
Added plus: using a rolling release so once on a computer I don't have to reinstall it again.
Wasn't that because that was a LTS and since they have a policy of not upgrading during releases, that the LTS would have been stuck with Firefox 2? I understand the logic in that, but I disagree with the conclusion. At that point, the LTS almost becomes like windows where you need to wait for the next patch/update before using it. It's almost like Ubuntu's release cycle is a counter-reaction to Debian's.
Should companies be able to require employees to obtain a certification, but refuse to pay for it, under threat of losing their job to a certified individual? Should it be or is it even legal to demand this of employees, especially if such a certification was not required at the time of hire?"
Yes and yes. Next question? Seriously though, I don't think this is even an area you can legally enforce. I would think that the only time you could enforce this is if IT is singled out as having to doing this on their time & dime and other departments get to study for exams on company time. The company you described doesn't sound like a great place to work, but that's capitalism...
My workplace (not just for IT) handles that by having a min of 30 hours you must work per week. Sick, vacation and etc count towards those hours. That way, there is some room to cut back on hours during the "non-busy" times, with the idea that some weeks you'll be more busy than others. You just need to maintain an average set of hours. Maybe that's something your employer would be willing to accept?
the Protestant evolution has been away from being able to speak to Mary and the Saints. Other Abrahamic religions are clear (Islam certainly - I don't know much about Judaism) that it is sacriligeous to expect anyone other than God to answer your prayers.
I'm not familiar as much with Judaism today, but the idea from the Old Testament is that the high priest performed intercessory prayers & sacrifices on behalf of Israel. I still think the belief is that God answered the prayer, but the people had to go through the high priest as a mediator. (Christianity, if following the New Testament and not rituals from Catholicism/etc, holds that Jesus is the new high priest.And being himself God, there's no need for another mediator.) So Christianity*, being "an extension" of Judaism, would also hold that it would be sacrilegious to pray to someone other than God.
PURGE COMPLETE.