Seriously. My television has a power button. When I press it, the television turns on; when I press it a second time it turns off. My children are not allowed to watch a television show/cartoon that I have not previewed. If they do, there are negative consequences that my children would rather avoid. Oh, it takes time. If my children want to watch a new show they heard about at school/saw a commercial for/whatever, they must wait until it my wife or I have seen an episode or two and we approve. We censor our television. Just to prove what an evil, horrible, worst-ever parent I am, my children only watch television on the weekends after their homework is finished.
Actually Vista with 4 Gigs of RAM boots pretty quickly. It's once it's up that it is slow.
Microsoft seems to have performed a bit of trickery to make you perceive that Vista boots quickly. The desktop on my wife's Vista laptop appears fairly quickly but it is simply unusable for a couple more minutes. This is different from XP which is fairly usable as soon as (well, shortly after) the desktop appears. It's rather like the desktop is the bootsplash on Vista.
On another note, has anyone heard from cousin who is a Nigerian prince? He hasn't called in days and we're beginning to get worried.....
Oh, don't worry. He's fine. I just spoke with him last week (well, via email). I got ahold of him just in time, too. The next day my bank seems to have made some sort of accounting error that I'm still fighting with them about (how in the world could it be *my* fault?). Anyhoo, I won't miss the funds for much longer, thanks to my dear prince.
So a company has employees who read information posted to a public forum. Big deal. In the article (yes, I read it) the author wrote, "The rest of his e-mail may as well have read, 'Big Brother is watching you.'" Um...how? "Big Brother" is the government, not a company employee who reads *public* opinions of the company's service and responds to the company's *customer*. I think this is great. As a Comcast customer, I *want* them to respond to customer opinion.
Oh, hey, I just got an email from Comcast myself. I gotta go.
X.org is an open project. It's as good as its developers. The fact that millions of people's daily computing depends on it, but developers don't fix bugs very much, is the fault of the community.
"X.org" is you. Lift a finger to help sometime. That gives you the right to complain when you don't like it. Otherwise, you're just a mouthy freeloader. Asserting that one does not have the right to complain about Free software until one has contributed code is like saying one does not have the right to complain about one's government until one has been elected to office. I call bullocks. I am not nearly skilled enough to play professional basketball but I know how the Celtics could have beaten the Lakers last night in the NBA Finals (okay...this illustration is really just to point out that the Celtics are in the Finals after years - decades - of frustration). I have the right to complain about the officiating and the lack of team defense stopping Kobe and Vuja-whatever-his-name-is. I do not have to become an NBA referee to offer criticism - even insightful criticism.
I have been a Linux user for eleven years and have contributed *zero* code (being neither a developer nor even in IT). When I come across Free software that does not work properly I complain. I have a right to complain. I do not have a right to force you to fix the problem; I could learn to program and, perhaps, how to fix the problems I encounter. But choosing not to learn how to write programs does not disqualify me from complaining. Does that mean I am simply a mouthy freeloader? Perhaps, but who really thinks the xorg developers really only write code for themselves and their fellow xorg developers?
Just because an argument's ancient doesn't mean it's not still valid. Plus, after all, the number of distributions has been rising for a long time. Maybe the argument carries more weight now than it used to.
The argument carries little weight. In the UNIX wars of the 1980's, the various UNIX companies intentionally introduced incompatibilities to create vendor lock-in. What are the differences between Linux versions? One has KDE as the default GUI and another has GNOME. One uses dpkg and another uses rpm. The UNIX wars could happen because the code was proprietary. Such a Linux war cannot happen because the software is open source.
The older I get, the more I agree, and the more I think campaign finance along the lines of what other countries have is the solution.
Parties apply, and get $x million per candidate (or however it's decided). This money comes out of the treasury, paid by taxes. No private donation.
Part of me (the capital L Libertarian Party part) would love to see something like this but the true libertarian in me says *no way*. I hate that the two major parties are controlled by the purse strings, but limiting donations to parties limits free speech. If I were a billionaire (I am not; I am a thousandaire - I just made that up) and I really wanted to support a candidate, I should be able to pay for my own advertising to say "support Candidate X". Campaign finance limitations prevent me from doing so. If I wanted to give $1,000,000 to the Party for the Little People of Western Idaho for their diminutive presidential candidate, I am unable to do so. My freedom is limited (currently). By enacting this sort of government-funded campaign finance reform my freedom of speech would be greatly limited. Still, it would be wonderful for the smaller parties (especially the Libertarian Party) to get some funding to get their message out to the masses. I do not think looking to the government is a good way.
Funny how ad hominem attacks on people you don't know tend to miss so widely. I'm not even from the US and for all I care both of your major parties are equally bought, corrupted and incompetent.
It was not an ad hominem attack; it was an ad hominem snark. This is/. I can snark here. Given the tone of your post and the fact that you mentioned Cheney and Halliburton together led me to believe you are from America or at the very least you support the Democratic Party. Again, this is/. I can be wrong here.
The point that I was making and that seems to have been overlooked in favor of the snark is that Cheney and Halliburton are so often mentioned together and those who oppose the current President and his party fail to recall that it was a Democratic president who offered Halliburton a contract without requiring a competing bid or putting an upper limit on the contract. Instead, Democratic congressman call for special investigations into Cheney's role in doing what Bill Clinton started. I was simply pointing out the double standard and the fact that Clinton will continue to be thought of as a grand and wonderful president when in fact the current president is in many ways simply following in his footsteps. The real difference between the parties is, as you alluded to, the letter in parenthesis behind the man's name.
Though I fear we will soon find out how much money Haliburton is willing to throw around in order to keep their sock puppet in office.
Um...Bill Clinton has been out of office for several years now.
Oh? You mean Cheney? Ah. I thought you meant the first guy in office to offer a military contract to Halliburton with no limit and no competing bids. That was Bill Clinton. He was their sock puppet. If anything, this administration has simply *continued* Clinton's policy with Halliburton. I suspect, though, that Clinton will get a buy on this one because, well, he is from your party [apparently].
Hardly. Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Atheists believe a universal negative, i.e., there is no god. Since one cannot prove a negative, in order to be an atheist one must believe a negative without any evidence. This requires great faith, whether in one's intellectual abilities to discern and perceive things beyond one's ken or in blind hope that there really is not a god or in science or in whatever. Great faith is required to not believe in God.
I'm not sure why they are now just claiming that they are ink efficient. My HP DeskJet 400C was so ink efficient that I used the same black and white cartridge for 5 years in college until it completely broke down and several hardware rollers came out with the final page of my Senior Thesis.
Five years of use out of an *inkjet* cartridge? You bought a lot of papers, eh? Or did your professors like papers in red ink?:-)
How are you leave off Debian GNU/Linux from the distribution list. Are you people just a bunch of idiots or what? It's obvious you Dellosers don't even know the history of GNU/Linux because Debian was the FIRST GNU/Linux distribution and continues to be the best GNU/Linux distribution. You'd have to be a complete moron to make a list of GNU/Linux distributions and leave off Debian GNU/Linux. It's obvious that Dell has no interest in supporting REAL free software, only a bunch of fake anti-freedom distros like Red Hat "Linux" (sic).
Dell you can go to hell, I am never going to buy your products again!!!
Why was this modded "Funny"?
My Linux friends always ask me which distro I use. I just tell them I do not use a "distro"...I use Debian.
I do not see what is funny about this guy's comments.
...would receive a $440 million cash capital infusion, but it was not specific as to the source of the cash -- Someone finally paid for the retail version of Windows Vista Ultimate.
If I said it once, I said it a billion times: Dude, don't exaggerate. $440 million is way more than a single install of Windows Vista Ultimate. This is for a *site* license.
Sheesh. You people on/. *never* stop exaggerating. Not for one single femtosecond of the day.
Your friends are being stupid, deliberately or not. There is no distinction in nature between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is just larger quantities of macroevolution over much longer times.
There *is* a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. In macroevolution, an organism gains new features, such as wings. In microevolution an organism gets stronger arms. This explains how it is possible for the Watusi of Burundi to have an average height of over six feet and the Mbuti in Congo (they live 100 miles or so apart) grow to an average height of four and a half feet or so. This is microevolution. This is the enhancement of certain characteristics that already exist within a single species. The Watusi and the Mbuti can marry and have children. Their children would likely vary greatly in their height (though they do not intermarry; they loathe one another). If the Watusi and Mbuti had experienced macroevolution, one tribe would have wings and the other would have venom and fangs.
I understand the theory that lots of small changes over an incredibly long time period equals larger changes. In the above example, macroevolution teaches that stronger arms eventually become powerful wings. Microevolution acknowledges that stronger arms can become a dominant feature in a species. The genetic code, however, is not present for those arms to produce feathers.
The difference between micro and macro is the former is the enhancement of features already present while the latter is the addition of features not formerly present.
It's like saying that there's "microwalking" which is what I do from the car park to the office every morning, and down to the shops on weekends, and that can result in changes of my location over time on a small scale; but the idea that people, over tens of thousands of years walked out of central Africa into Europe, then over to Asia, across to North America and into South America - that's "macrowalking" and it's impossible. God must have put them there.
The ability to walk is not a new feature. It is a present characteristic similar to my illustration of an organism developing stronger arms. It is merely an enhancement of an existing feature: the ability to walk farther. The ability to *fly* from Africa into Europe would be an example of macroevolution.
Slashdot Mirror
This research is totally bogus. I just like to vote for the ugly candidate.
-
Thanks for your vote, but I'd rather not be a candidate.
Waterboarding? It's an effective parenting tool---except in my house, my ten-year-old son calls it "showering." Pure torture.
Seriously. My television has a power button. When I press it, the television turns on; when I press it a second time it turns off. My children are not allowed to watch a television show/cartoon that I have not previewed. If they do, there are negative consequences that my children would rather avoid. Oh, it takes time. If my children want to watch a new show they heard about at school/saw a commercial for/whatever, they must wait until it my wife or I have seen an episode or two and we approve. We censor our television. Just to prove what an evil, horrible, worst-ever parent I am, my children only watch television on the weekends after their homework is finished.
Senators, thank you. I feel so empowered.
Actually Vista with 4 Gigs of RAM boots pretty quickly. It's once it's up that it is slow.
Microsoft seems to have performed a bit of trickery to make you perceive that Vista boots quickly. The desktop on my wife's Vista laptop appears fairly quickly but it is simply unusable for a couple more minutes. This is different from XP which is fairly usable as soon as (well, shortly after) the desktop appears. It's rather like the desktop is the bootsplash on Vista.
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson said it best:
``The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees, in every object, only the traits which favor that theory.''
Er, 3M makes rocket fuel? Definitely news for nerds.
Oh, wait. That was pocket projectors. I'm sorry. I was only off by one consonant.
I propose they try it with lawyers next. I can provide a short list if they want.
I have a list of 535 lawyers who are available. Better hurry, though, so we have time to figure out which names to write in come November.
On another note, has anyone heard from cousin who is a Nigerian prince? He hasn't called in days and we're beginning to get worried.....
Oh, don't worry. He's fine. I just spoke with him last week (well, via email). I got ahold of him just in time, too. The next day my bank seems to have made some sort of accounting error that I'm still fighting with them about (how in the world could it be *my* fault?). Anyhoo, I won't miss the funds for much longer, thanks to my dear prince.
I, for one, welcome our new analog computing overlor...
What do you mean, "They're dead"?
So a company has employees who read information posted to a public forum. Big deal. In the article (yes, I read it) the author wrote, "The rest of his e-mail may as well have read, 'Big Brother is watching you.'" Um...how? "Big Brother" is the government, not a company employee who reads *public* opinions of the company's service and responds to the company's *customer*. I think this is great. As a Comcast customer, I *want* them to respond to customer opinion.
Oh, hey, I just got an email from Comcast myself. I gotta go.
Pleasing a woman is easy. Give her your credit card.
I believe that is only legal in Nevada. Other states require cash.
I'm not sure I can accept this...
You know, you skeptics are starting to anger me. Why, I am about ten seconds away from...oh, wait. No, I'm not.
"X.org" is you. Lift a finger to help sometime. That gives you the right to complain when you don't like it. Otherwise, you're just a mouthy freeloader. Asserting that one does not have the right to complain about Free software until one has contributed code is like saying one does not have the right to complain about one's government until one has been elected to office. I call bullocks. I am not nearly skilled enough to play professional basketball but I know how the Celtics could have beaten the Lakers last night in the NBA Finals (okay...this illustration is really just to point out that the Celtics are in the Finals after years - decades - of frustration). I have the right to complain about the officiating and the lack of team defense stopping Kobe and Vuja-whatever-his-name-is. I do not have to become an NBA referee to offer criticism - even insightful criticism.
I have been a Linux user for eleven years and have contributed *zero* code (being neither a developer nor even in IT). When I come across Free software that does not work properly I complain. I have a right to complain. I do not have a right to force you to fix the problem; I could learn to program and, perhaps, how to fix the problems I encounter. But choosing not to learn how to write programs does not disqualify me from complaining. Does that mean I am simply a mouthy freeloader? Perhaps, but who really thinks the xorg developers really only write code for themselves and their fellow xorg developers?
Just because I can, I did a couple of bar-napkin type calculations to see what it would take to protect this environment.
Dude, that wasn't a "bar-napkin type calculation"... You used the whole tablecloth!
Posting anon as [people] at Comcast that know me know my Slashdot ID.
:-)
And now I am posting as myself, so mods, feel free to give me the karma I missed while posting anonymously.
+5?
Just because an argument's ancient doesn't mean it's not still valid. Plus, after all, the number of distributions has been rising for a long time. Maybe the argument carries more weight now than it used to.
The argument carries little weight. In the UNIX wars of the 1980's, the various UNIX companies intentionally introduced incompatibilities to create vendor lock-in. What are the differences between Linux versions? One has KDE as the default GUI and another has GNOME. One uses dpkg and another uses rpm. The UNIX wars could happen because the code was proprietary. Such a Linux war cannot happen because the software is open source.
Is it 1997 again?
The older I get, the more I agree, and the more I think campaign finance along the lines of what other countries have is the solution.
Parties apply, and get $x million per candidate (or however it's decided). This money comes out of the treasury, paid by taxes. No private donation.
Part of me (the capital L Libertarian Party part) would love to see something like this but the true libertarian in me says *no way*. I hate that the two major parties are controlled by the purse strings, but limiting donations to parties limits free speech. If I were a billionaire (I am not; I am a thousandaire - I just made that up) and I really wanted to support a candidate, I should be able to pay for my own advertising to say "support Candidate X". Campaign finance limitations prevent me from doing so. If I wanted to give $1,000,000 to the Party for the Little People of Western Idaho for their diminutive presidential candidate, I am unable to do so. My freedom is limited (currently). By enacting this sort of government-funded campaign finance reform my freedom of speech would be greatly limited. Still, it would be wonderful for the smaller parties (especially the Libertarian Party) to get some funding to get their message out to the masses. I do not think looking to the government is a good way.
Funny how ad hominem attacks on people you don't know tend to miss so widely. I'm not even from the US and for all I care both of your major parties are equally bought, corrupted and incompetent.
/. I can snark here. Given the tone of your post and the fact that you mentioned Cheney and Halliburton together led me to believe you are from America or at the very least you support the Democratic Party. Again, this is /. I can be wrong here.
It was not an ad hominem attack; it was an ad hominem snark. This is
The point that I was making and that seems to have been overlooked in favor of the snark is that Cheney and Halliburton are so often mentioned together and those who oppose the current President and his party fail to recall that it was a Democratic president who offered Halliburton a contract without requiring a competing bid or putting an upper limit on the contract. Instead, Democratic congressman call for special investigations into Cheney's role in doing what Bill Clinton started. I was simply pointing out the double standard and the fact that Clinton will continue to be thought of as a grand and wonderful president when in fact the current president is in many ways simply following in his footsteps. The real difference between the parties is, as you alluded to, the letter in parenthesis behind the man's name.
-theolojin(L)
Though I fear we will soon find out how much money Haliburton is willing to throw around in order to keep their sock puppet in office.
Um...Bill Clinton has been out of office for several years now.
Oh? You mean Cheney? Ah. I thought you meant the first guy in office to offer a military contract to Halliburton with no limit and no competing bids. That was Bill Clinton. He was their sock puppet. If anything, this administration has simply *continued* Clinton's policy with Halliburton. I suspect, though, that Clinton will get a buy on this one because, well, he is from your party [apparently].
Hardly. Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Atheists believe a universal negative, i.e., there is no god. Since one cannot prove a negative, in order to be an atheist one must believe a negative without any evidence. This requires great faith, whether in one's intellectual abilities to discern and perceive things beyond one's ken or in blind hope that there really is not a god or in science or in whatever. Great faith is required to not believe in God.
I'm not sure why they are now just claiming that they are ink efficient. My HP DeskJet 400C was so ink efficient that I used the same black and white cartridge for 5 years in college until it completely broke down and several hardware rollers came out with the final page of my Senior Thesis.
:-)
Five years of use out of an *inkjet* cartridge? You bought a lot of papers, eh? Or did your professors like papers in red ink?
How are you leave off Debian GNU/Linux from the distribution list. Are you people just a bunch of idiots or what? It's obvious you Dellosers don't even know the history of GNU/Linux because Debian was the FIRST GNU/Linux distribution and continues to be the best GNU/Linux distribution. You'd have to be a complete moron to make a list of GNU/Linux distributions and leave off Debian GNU/Linux. It's obvious that Dell has no interest in supporting REAL free software, only a bunch of fake anti-freedom distros like Red Hat "Linux" (sic).
Dell you can go to hell, I am never going to buy your products again!!!
Why was this modded "Funny"?
My Linux friends always ask me which distro I use. I just tell them I do not use a "distro"...I use Debian.
I do not see what is funny about this guy's comments.
The public have a disturbing lack of understanding of the scientific process. Yes, climate change is a hot issue, and rightly so!
Yes, but is it a hot issue due to human behavior or is it a hot issue naturally?
...would receive a $440 million cash capital infusion, but it was not specific as to the source of the cash
/. *never* stop exaggerating. Not for one single femtosecond of the day.
--
Someone finally paid for the retail version of Windows Vista Ultimate.
If I said it once, I said it a billion times: Dude, don't exaggerate. $440 million is way more than a single install of Windows Vista Ultimate. This is for a *site* license.
Sheesh. You people on
Your friends are being stupid, deliberately or not. There is no distinction in nature between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is just larger quantities of macroevolution over much longer times.
There *is* a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. In macroevolution, an organism gains new features, such as wings. In microevolution an organism gets stronger arms. This explains how it is possible for the Watusi of Burundi to have an average height of over six feet and the Mbuti in Congo (they live 100 miles or so apart) grow to an average height of four and a half feet or so. This is microevolution. This is the enhancement of certain characteristics that already exist within a single species. The Watusi and the Mbuti can marry and have children. Their children would likely vary greatly in their height (though they do not intermarry; they loathe one another). If the Watusi and Mbuti had experienced macroevolution, one tribe would have wings and the other would have venom and fangs.
I understand the theory that lots of small changes over an incredibly long time period equals larger changes. In the above example, macroevolution teaches that stronger arms eventually become powerful wings. Microevolution acknowledges that stronger arms can become a dominant feature in a species. The genetic code, however, is not present for those arms to produce feathers.
The difference between micro and macro is the former is the enhancement of features already present while the latter is the addition of features not formerly present.
It's like saying that there's "microwalking" which is what I do from the car park to the office every morning, and down to the shops on weekends, and that can result in changes of my location over time on a small scale; but the idea that people, over tens of thousands of years walked out of central Africa into Europe, then over to Asia, across to North America and into South America - that's "macrowalking" and it's impossible. God must have put them there.
The ability to walk is not a new feature. It is a present characteristic similar to my illustration of an organism developing stronger arms. It is merely an enhancement of an existing feature: the ability to walk farther. The ability to *fly* from Africa into Europe would be an example of macroevolution.