Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This is so 1990s (Score 4, Insightful) 132

by r_a_trip (#47162679) Attached to: Linux Mint 17 'Qiana' Released
***Exactly. And with that in mind, since we left the 90's it has been really hard to find a good program launcher that isn't incredibly bloaty and that doesn't hinder my workflow.***

Exactly this. It's the same for me. I'm not necesarilly married to the "Win95" paradigm, but if I'm going to dump it, I expect the replacement to enhance my daily workflow, not drive me up the wall with distracting and context breaking view switches.

It may be the modern thing on mobile phones, but there it is not a matter of innovation, but of working around restraints of the (still) limited mobile hardware.

As long as nothing better comes along, I'll be on Cinnamon.

Comment: Re:We've had winters for decades, son. (Score 1) 304

by r_a_trip (#45537901) Attached to: European Health Levels Suddenly Collapsed After 2003 and Nobody Is Sure Why

So presumambly all your houses are built for it.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but TFA mentions that The Netherlands escaped the trend and I can tell you that Air Conditioning is rare in The Netherlands. Our houses are built to keep warmth in as much as possible, as winters are pretty cold here.

If a heat wave in 2003 caused the decline in health afterwards, The Netherlands would have been affected pretty badly.

Comment: Re:the difference (Score 5, Interesting) 473

by r_a_trip (#44945483) Attached to: Popular Science Is Getting Rid of Comments
*** What is a decent alternative that would remove the "I disagree" button mentality and promote good well-thought-out content? ***

Well, it's so obvious that it is staring us right in the face. To get rid of the abuse of moderation options to serve as a "I disagree" button, just add that ff-ing "I disagree" button and make this a second counter next to the standard moderation. It would instantly point out the (interesting?) comments that are counter to the group-think.

Comment: Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score 1) 162

by r_a_trip (#44628157) Attached to: Wikileaks Party Making Questionable Deals In Attempt To Win Senate Seat
Cold Fjord, you are a master in reducing everything into its constituent parts and from there "failing" to take the overarching relations between these constituent parts into account. No, Snowden and Manning have nothing to do directly with politics in Australia. They both are indicative though of the rot that pervades politics in so called civilised societies. On the surface, the citizens in a civilised society are in power, but in practise it is the largely autocratic, political caste that determines the fate of the non-political castes. To become an aacepted part of the political caste, you need to accept their "etiquette". Maybe that is the way primate societies are supposed to work, but humanity can't let go of sugar coating their machinations under the pretense of having higher principles and ideals.

Comment: Re:Hookers (Score 2) 335

Don't talk authoritatively about sex if your being is completely lacking the "firmware" for performing this function. This is not to dismiss you, belittle you or label you as a freak. You are not any of those things. You are you. You don't do sex, which is ok, but you have absolutely no insight into what the "need" for sex is, because you are in a minority with a differing psychological make-up that doesn't need it.

I don't know what life without sex is, because my firmware compels me to seek it out. Sexual beings get pretty unhappy and frustrated if their want for (non-solitary) sex is not met. For sexual beings, the togetherness, the physical act and the release it gives, is something we simply don't want to do without. We sexual beings might not die if we don't get sex, but our quality of life greatly diminishes.

To give you something workable, imagine it like this: Denying sexual beings their access to sex (probably) makes us just as unhappy as you'd be if someone were to constantly badger you with proposals for physical sex.

Comment: Re:No, you can't use it. (Score 1) 120

by r_a_trip (#44296387) Attached to: Github Finally Agrees Public Repos Should Have Explicit Licenses
*** Why would you not be allowed to use it? ***

Because to make effective use of the code on github, you have to make a copy of it. You duplicate what is on github and store it on a different medium. This, for the purpose of copyright, constitutes a copy and that is strictly forbidden without permission.

So no license, no duplication, as you don't have the permission to make the duplicate. That is copyright in most countries and under the Berne Convention. So we all live in a draconian regime when it comes to sharing intellectual works.

Comment: Re:I agree with Lewis Black (Score 1) 383

by r_a_trip (#43994297) Attached to: Dmitry Itskov Wants To Help You Live Forever Via an Android Avatar
People in general are in each others way and we all are equally worthless. It's fun to wallow in delusions of superiority every once in a while, but it doesn't take away the fact that we are all bald monkeys with a fear of the dark and a dread for loneliness.

I can only imagine what hell it will create if such flawed beings as humans gain the ability to prolong their inferiority indefinitely.

Comment: Re: and if license picking were mandatory... (Score 2) 356

by r_a_trip (#43993759) Attached to: Your License Is Your Interface

The only possible source of confusion is if publishing something openly on the web constitutes implicit permission to do something more than what copyright already allows.

Only if you don't know about the default in copyright and that it doesn't have implicits. It's quite simple. No additional permissions? No one can do jack shit with it except the author.

If you fail to plan, plan to fail.